Leviticus · Chapter 21

And Hashem said to Moses: Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a dead person he shall not defile himself among his people.

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). 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) . בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — This implies also those of Aaron's sons who have a bodily blemish; בני אהרן THE SONS OF AARON — but not the daughters of Aaron (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1). 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).

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. 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, 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, we 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]. 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 Eternal is like d’varai (my words). A similar case is ‘imrei’(words of) truth. So also: for it hath heard all ‘imrei’ (the words of) the Eternal. And the expression Go in unto Pharaoh ‘v’dibarta’ (and thou shalt speak) to him 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,’ 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, 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 ...

"Say to the priests." After He had warned Israel — and the sons of Aaron among them in general — to be holy, He now warns the sons of Aaron specifically, since they are obligated to guard themselves from additional matters by virtue of being the servants of Hashem. It is also possible to interpret "say to the priests" as referring to the entire preceding passage, since the Torah is in their hands. "And you shall say to them" — the rationale of the commandments that they alone are obligated to observe. "To a [dead] soul" — this refers to the deceased. The word "yitama" [he shall become impure] is in the hitpa'el conjugation; the dagesh in the tet is to absorb the tav [that would otherwise begin the conjugation]. The sense of "among his people" is: among all Israel, who are his people.

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.” 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 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.

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. 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...

(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,” including minors;” 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.”

שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים, “he who gives the right answer is like giving a kiss on the lips.” (Proverbs 24,26) Solomon taught us here about the advantage enjoyed by the wise man whose words are so pleasant to his listeners, everybody being anxious to listen to them. His words provide the answers to all the questions his listeners have either asked or have been meaning to ask. Solomon did not mean that such a wise man deserves to be kissed on his lips; after all what would his listeners learn from kissing him? Besides, if that had been Solomon’s meaning he should have written שפתים יושק, “the lips have been kissed,” or “the lips ought to be kissed.’” The meaning of the words is that the lips of the listeners “listen” to his words and feel as close to him as if they were kissing his lips. The listeners hang on every word such a wise man utters. His words are well received and welcome. This is the plain meaning of the verse we quoted. A kabbalistic approach: Solomon referred to the words spoken by the wise as נכוחים, “correct,” the word having a similar meaning to Proverbs 8,9 כלם נכוחים למבין, “they are all straightforward to those that possess knowledge.” Seeing that the word ישק, “will kiss,” describes close and intimate physical contact, Solomon employs this word which is familiar to us to describe close and intimate contact on an intellectual though abstract level. Solomon used similar wording in Song of Songs when he spoke of ישקני מנשיקות פיהו, “may he (G’d) kiss me with the kisses of His mouth,” (Song of Songs 1,2). There too the word is “borrowed,” describing spiritual values couched in language applicable to matters physical. The word שפתים, instead of meaning “lips” is derived from שפת הנהר, “the banks of the river,” meaning “the boundaries of the river.” Keeping this in mind, the meaning of the whole verse quoted above is: “the wise man who is tuned in to the fundamental aspects of wisdom in the celestial domains, a wisdom which is freely available at all times without interruption, can answer all questions and questioners correctly, being always in tune with them.” He can do this as he has reached the outermost limits (שפתים) of this wisdom. When we wish to understand the specific allure of this level of wisdom we should think of what our sages call מיתת נשיקה, “death by divine kiss,” i.e. mortal man achieving the ultimate cleaving to the divine that it is possible for a creature to achieve with its Creator. King David referred to this elevated spiritual level of the mutual attraction between G’d and man when he said in Psalms 91,14 (quoting G’d): כי בי חשק ואפלטהו, “because he is devoted to Me I will deliver him.” Any righteous person (צדיק) who has attained the spiritual level David spoke of here will not experience death as a form of destruction of the body or other faculties, but will experience it as a direct spiritual promotion. Three famous people who experienced such a “death” were Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. When the Torah reported their deaths” it always added the words,על פי ה', “a kiss of G’d.” In the case of Miriam the Torah did not use these words as it is not in keeping with accepted rules of decorum to speak of G’d as “kissing” a woman. (Compare Numbers 33,38 — Aaron, Deut. 34,5 — Moses). We have it on the authority of Rabbi Eliezer (Baba Batra 17) that Miriam experienced the same kind of death as did her brothers as there is a גזרה שוה, a textural nuance not justifiable by the rules of syntax or grammar, which links Moses and Miriam. In connection with the deaths of all these three great personalities the Torah writes an extraneous word שם, “there.” Rabbi Eliezer sees in this a hint that they all died in a similar manner, but that the Torah wished to avoid saying this outright in the case of Miriam as we have already pointed out. We find a similar linkage of the three patriarchs by means of the respective words בכל, מכל, כל describing the blessings each received from G’d. Another individual who experienced this kind of “death” was Rabbi Yehudah haNassi (editor of the Mishnah). We know this as according to tradition the priests took part in his funeral. Had he died at the hands of the angel of death, the priests would not have been allowed to defile themselves by participating actively in his funeral (last rites). According to Ketuvot 104 when Rabbi Yehudah haNassi was about to die, he raised his ten fingers toward heaven exclaiming: “Lord, You are aware that I have toiled with all my ten fingers and have not even used the smallest one to indulge in the pleasures of this world. May it be Your will that my “rest” (hereafter) will be one of undisturbed tranquility.” Thereupon a heavenly echo was heard saying: יבא שלום ינוח על משכנו, “may he come to peace and rest on his couch” (compare Isaiah 57,2). We have a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 3,1 according to which when Rabbi Yehudah haNassi died Rabbi Yannai exclaimed “the laws applicable to the priesthood do not apply today.” He referred to the fact that the priests must not defile themselves by touching a corpse or being under the same roof as a dead body. This is because if they did they would disqualify themselves from performing service in the Temple until such time as they had purified themselves. What Rabbi Yannai had in mind was that seeing that Rabbi Yehudah did not die the kind of death other mortals die, i.e. at the hands of the angel of death, the rule about priests not being allowed to touch his body or being in his proximity did not apply to them concerning him. This statement of Rabbi Yannai was to apply only on that day and only to that particular corpse. אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן ואמרת אליהם לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו, “speak to the Priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them 'none of them must defile himself through a dead person among his people'” The verse commences with the words: ”say to the Priests,” and immediately repeats: “and tell them!” Why the repetition? We need to understand the sequence as follows: “say to the Priests whatever was written in the previous paragraph, and now add new information, i.e. laws recorded forthwith and applicable specifically to the priests.” The reason that the Priests had to be instructed in the legislation contained in chapter 20 was that they were the foremost teachers of the Jewish people and therefore had to be conversant with all legislation concerning civil law such as marriages, etc. Our sages (Yevamot 114) understand the repetition to mean that the adults were to warn the minors concerning all these laws. One was not to make use of one’s children while they were not yet of age to perform tasks for their parents which the Torah had forbidden to be carried out by adults. This warning includes many of the prohibitions of the Torah whether in the field of ritual impurity, violations of the Sabbath by minors, consumption of forbidden food by minors, etc. On the other hand, if minors choose to carry out such tasks forbidden to their elders without having been urged to do so, the parents are not commanded to stop them. To make sure we do not act in this manner the Torah repeated the exhortation “say to them,” to teach us that we do have to train the young priests already to distance themselves from all that is forbidden to the adult priests. A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma 3, Emor): the first word אמור is a directive to the priest to defile himself for the sake of burying a dead who has no one else to bury him. The second word אמר is to forbid the priest to defile himself on other corpses. The reason the Torah had to write the words הכהנים, “the priests,” (seeing that by being sons of Aaron we already know that they are priests), the Torah wanted to exempt people who genetically are priests but are disqualified from carrying out priestly functions for reasons of some kind of illegitimate genealogy (חללים). 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).

Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them. Do we not already know that the priests are the sons of Aaron? What is learned by the sons of Aaron? Also, the repetition of the term say needs explanation. It seems to me to say about this that Aaron was the holy one of God, the source of holiness, and from him holiness was drawn also to his sons, but they were not like him in every aspect because they were distant from the source of holiness. Therefore, Aaron, who was the source of holiness, was not permitted to defile himself for any relative, even for a father or mother. So too, every High Priest from his seed is like him in every aspect, as he receives the abundance of holiness inherently and primarily from the primary holiness of God, as it is written, for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. The term crown denotes separation, meaning that he was separated through the anointing of his God, which was placed upon him directly, not through an intermediary. But the sons of Aaron, who received holiness through Aaron as an intermediary, are described differently, for on their own they have no holiness, but by virtue of being the sons of Aaron, they have holiness. Therefore, their law is divided: on account of the portion of holiness they received, they should not defile themselves for distant dead, but because they are somewhat distant from the source of holiness, they are permitted to defile themselves for close relatives. Therefore, the saying is repeated, because the first saying, Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, indicates that by virtue of their being sons of Aaron, they received holiness through Aaron as an intermediary, so it is appropriate to command them, he shall not defile himself for the dead among his people. And say to them is a second saying, referring to their own essence, which does not have so much additional holiness, as is hinted at in the words to them, as if they were not the sons of Aaron. Therefore, it is appropriate to command them a separate command, except for his relative, that they are permitted to defile themselves for close relatives. Another explanation, the exact opposite, is to tell them a first statement that holiness clings to them because they are the sons of Aaron, who was the source of holiness. But you shall say to them refers to themselves, that even if they were not sons of Aaron, nevertheless, since they are servants of the living God, it is not proper for them to become impure except for his close relative. For it is enough for a servant to be like his master, as even the Holy One, blessed be He, concerns Himself with His relatives, as it is written, And He buried [Moses] in the valley (Deuteronomy 34:6), referring to those who are close to the Holy One, blessed be He.

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. 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.”

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.

[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!

Except for his close relative who is near to him — for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother.

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

"Except for his close relative." It seemed to us that its meaning is like [the verse] "a man, to any near kin of his flesh" — there [the Torah] states a general rule, and here it follows with specifics: his mother and his father. The sense of "ba'al among his people" is that a husband may not become impure for his wife. Yet as we have seen, our Sages transmitted that he does become impure for his wife, and they included her under the term "his relative" in the manner of an asmakhta, as I explained in connection with the phrase "a foreign people." Others say the meaning of ba'al is a great man, one over whom the people are in his charge, as in "its owner [ba'alav] is not with it" — but the first interpretation is thereby negated. The reason the mother is mentioned before the father is that, generally speaking, the male lives longer than the female in most cases.

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.] 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...

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, to his mother or his father;” the letter ו before the word לאביו 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. 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.

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?” 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.

For his kin [relative]. The reason for the prohibition of impurity is because of the spirit of impurity that remains attached to the human body. Therefore it is said he shall not become impure for a soul and it does not say “by a soul” because the soul itself is pure and has no aspect of impurity. However, the soul is the cause of impurity because all other living creatures that do not have a rational soul but only a life force — their death is merely the separation of the four elements, and the Angel of Death is not involved with them at all. Therefore, they do not have severe impurity. But the human soul does not depart except through the Angel of Death, who removes it from there against its will, as our Sages said (Avot 4:29), “Against your will you die.” He [the Angel of Death] comes from the side of impurity and brings impurity upon the body. This excludes the righteous and unique individuals of the generation whose death is by a divine kiss, not through the Angel of Death, and they have no aspect of impurity at all. Therefore, our Sages said (Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1) that on the day Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the priesthood was suspended because the priests did not become impure from him at all. And it is possible that all who are from the seed of Aaron, holy to God, then their death is by a divine kiss and the impurity departs from them. This sanctity was drawn from Aaron, who is holy to God, to all His descendants, such that none of them has any aspect of impurity. Therefore, a priest is permitted to tend to his relatives — his father, mother, son, daughter, and brother — because they are all from the seed of Aaron, and a priest’s wife is considered as his own body. And even though one who tends to them incurs a seven-day impurity, nevertheless, the impurity is not so great that it would oppose the priest’s holiness, since the essence of the impurity is somewhat lighter. However, a priest should not defile himself for another priest who is not his relative, because the responsibility falls upon the deceased’s relatives. If the priest does not have relatives, it is better that Israelites should tend to him. And if neither are present, then he is considered a met mitzvah [an abandoned corpse], and it is obvious that he is permitted to tend to him, and even for an Israelite is it permitted to do so. But the High Priest is forbidden from tending to all relatives because, due to his great holiness, even a slight impurity defiles him. “For his kin who is close to him.” The Rabbis said (Yevamot 22b) his kin refers to his wife. This is difficult: Why does it say who is close to him in masculine form? It should have said “who is close to him” in feminine form. And why does it call his wife his kin, and why did it place her before his father and mother?In the simple interpretation, it seems appropriate to explain as concluded (in Yevamot 63a): Rabbi Yossi said to Elijah, “How does a woman help a man?” He replied, “A man brings wheat — does he chew wheat? Flax — does he wear flax? Does she not enlighten his eyes and set him on his feet?”According to this, certainly his wife provides for him, and thus she is his kin, meaning his food that is close to him, because food transforms into the body of the one who is nourished. The meaning of the verse is that he may become impure for the one who nourishes him, because food is close to his essence, adding moisture to replace what was lost from him. Therefore, a man’s wife is considered like his own body, even though she was not created as bone of his bones except at that first instance of creation. Nevertheless, since for generations she enlightens his eyes through her provision and nourishment, it is proper that he should become impure for her. To ensure you don’t mistakenly think that he can become impure for anyone who feeds and supports him, the Torah uses the language of kin [she’ero], which can be interpreted as referring to his wife, as it says She is your father’s kin (Leviticus 18:12). It doesn’t explicitly say “his wife” in order to explain the reason why he may become impure for her. And as a hint, one can derive a law from here, what our Sages said (Moed Katan 25a) that when a Torah scholar dies, everyone is considered like his relative, and about him it says except for his relative who is close to him. For his relative refers to his sustenance, as our Sages said (Berachot 17a) “The whole world is sustained for the sake of my son Chanina, etc.” And our Sages said (Bava Kamma 60a) “Punishment only comes to the world because of the wicked, but it always begins with the righteous, as it is said If a fire breaks out and finds thorns, and a stack of grain is consumed (Exodus 22:5). The stack of grain has already been consumed, referring to the righteous.” You see that the righteous are called a “stack of grain,” — just as people eat from a stack of grain, so too the entire world is sustained because of the righteous. And the meaning of “already been consumed” is that the Holy One, blessed be He, comes with tactics of war, for it is the way of warriors to first block the city’s springs and burn their grain stores so they will have nothing to sustain themselves with, as Rashi explained regarding the plagues of Pharaoh (Exodus 8:17). Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, does this when Israel does not fulfill His will: He first removes His protection from them and spoils their grain so they will have nothing to eat through his merit, as we explained above in Parshat Vaychi (50:10) regarding the threshing floor of Atad, the matter of thorns and grain. Therefore it says except for his relative who is close to him, hinting at the Torah scholar who sustains him, and everyone is like his relatives, and he takes precedence over one’s father and mother, as our Sages said (Bava Metzia 33a) “Between the lost item of one’s father and the lost item of one’s teacher, the lost item of one’s teacher takes precedence, etc.” And this also applies when the righteous one passed away, and [so did] one’s father or mother. That is why the loss of one’s teacher takes precedence. To his mother and his father. Because his mother is not from the seed of Aaron except through being considered as one with her husband, therefore the mother is mentioned first as this is more of a novelty. But regarding the High Priest, where it says he shall not defile himself, the father is mentioned first because it is more of a novelty that he does not defile himself for his father who is from the seed of Aaron. And if you wish to interpret this in the manner of “not only this but also that,” we can say it is more reasonable to expect that he would defile himself for his mother, as she suffered greatly for him during pregnancy, childbirth, and raising him, which is not the case with the father. Therefore, these two passages — both the he shall defile himself mentioned here and the he shall not defile himself mentioned regarding the High Priest — follow the pattern of “not only this but also that.” Additionally, his mother’s identity is more certain than his father’s, because perhaps his mother committed adultery with another man and this person is not actually his father. Therefore, both passages follow the pattern of “not only this but also that.” Furthermore, the decomposition of a woman’s body is more difficult to witness than that of a man, therefore the mother is mentioned first to tell you that if both are lying before him, he must attend first to his mother. But regarding the High Priest, where it says he shall not defile himself, the father is mentioned first following the pattern of “not only this but also that,” and this is easily understood.

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 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. 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.

And for his sister who is a virgin, who is close to him, who has not been given to a man — for her he may defile himself.

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

"Who is close to him" — because she is his sister from [both] father and mother. Thus, a ba'al [husband] may not become impure among his people — whether among priests or among Israelites — except for those mentioned [here].

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 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, “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 priest even 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.

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.

A chief shall not defile himself among his people, to profane himself.

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).

"Lehachlo" — the dagesh in the lamed is to absorb what follows it, and it is the verbal noun in the nif'al conjugation.

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, “a husband (who is a priest) may not defile himself for his wife corpse (of a wife who has been forbidden to him and disqualified him for priestly duties);” 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 daughter-in-law 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.

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, “a husband (priest) among his people shall not defile himself to someone who has defiled him through marriage (forbidden union).” According to Rashi what is meant is that if a priest has married someone forbidden to him under Jewish law, he is not allowed to subsequently defile himself at such a woman’s funeral. Nachmanides, however, understands the word בעל as not speaking of a husband (or even a bachelor or widower) who is a priest, but of a non-priest who is of prominent social position. He supplies proof for the use of the word בעל in that context from Samuel II 6,2 בעלי יהודה, “the notables of Yehudah.” According to Nachmanides the Torah legislates that a socially highly placed husband must not defile himself on the dead if such participation results in his demeaning himself. The comparison to the priest who is not to defile himself on the dead is based on the social status of the priest which is the highest level of society. Therefore, other men of stature, who similarly occupy prominent positions should be judicious about where and when they defile themselves. Sifra Emor 1,3 claims that the word בעמיו means that a מת מצוה, a stray corpse who appears to have no relatives, is exempt from the legislation in this verse, and even socially highly placed persons must busy themselves forthwith with the burial of such a corpse.

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, no husband among the tribe of the priests is to defile himself ritually 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 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.

They shall not make a bald patch on their heads, and the corners of their beards they shall not shave, and on their flesh they shall not make an incision.

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). 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). 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).

"They shall not make a bald patch upon their head" — on account of the dead. "Nor the edge of their beard" — on account of the dead, following the custom of places in the land of Chaldea. Thus the meaning of "the edge of your beard" [in the earlier passage] is clarified. The sense of "a cut" [sheret] — even a single one; Israel has already been warned regarding all these things. The reason they are warned [here anew] is that a shaved head, a shorn beard, and cut flesh are not fitting for one who serves before Hashem.

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 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.

They shall not make a bald spot on their head. Even though Israelites were also warned about this, nevertheless both [prohibitions] are necessary. For if we were only informed about Israelites, one might think that only [mourning for] the loss of an Israelite for his generation does not make such a significant impression, therefore one should not grieve excessively by making a bald spot for him, because he also does not make such a significant void in the world. But for a priest, who serves our God, who dies, certainly the loss is great for his generation and makes a void in the world — one might think it permissible for his priestly relative to make a bald spot for him, therefore the Torah teaches us [it is not permitted]. And if we were only informed about priests, one might think that because the priest serves our God, certainly after his death he enters the eternal light of life, therefore it is not appropriate to grieve over his death, because it is for his benefit. But for an ordinary Israelite, who is not assured that he will not see the face of Gehenna, one might think it is permissible to grieve for him and make a bald spot on his account, therefore the Torah teaches us [it is not permitted]. And he shall not defile his seed among his people. It is a wonder to me that if above they interpreted among his people as meaning “while the dead person is among his people [and there are others proximate to bury him],” what would they say about among his people stated here? The simple meaning is among his people [indicating] that he disqualifies his seed from being counted among his people, namely the priests, because he disqualifies them from the law of priesthood. But above it is impossible to interpret it this way because then it would imply that a priest may not become impure among his people for a non-relative, but for an Israelite [non-priest] he may become impure — but this would be a logical contradiction [literally: a kal v’chomer, an a fortiori argument]. And one cannot say that the phrase “among his people” was used to make a point, because if so, it should have been omitted entirely, as it already says except for his relative, etc. which already excludes everyone else. Therefore, they had to interpret it as “while the dead person is among his people,” but here [in our verse] it is according to its simple meaning — [disqualifying his seed] from being counted among his people.

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.

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)

They shall be holy before their God, and they shall not profane the Name of their God, for the offerings of Hashem — the offering of their God — it is they who bring near, and they shall be holy.

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. 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.

"And they shall not desecrate the name of their God" — this is the explanation of "for the fire-offerings of Hashem."

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.

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)

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).

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. 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.

A woman who has gone astray or who has been profaned they shall not marry, and a woman who has been divorced from her husband they shall not marry, for he is holy before his God.

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). 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”.

"A harlot-woman [zonah]." We do not find anywhere in Scripture, according to the plain meaning, zonah used in any sense other than its literal meaning; and likewise [we interpret] "they gave a boy for a harlot [bizonah]" as I explained there. "And a desecrated woman [chalalah]" — one who is not publicly known as a harlot. According to the plain sense it would appear from the words of Ezekiel that widows of a priest are permitted to [ordinary] priests; therefore the transmitted tradition [Kabbalah] is the correct one.

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.

אשה זונה, “a woman who had engaged in a sexual relationship with a partner forbidden to Israelites;” (Rashi) If 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, “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;” and not someone who is not 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.

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.

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.

And you shall sanctify him, for the offering of your God it is he who brings near; holy shall he be to you, for holy am I, Hashem, who sanctifies you.

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). 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).

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. 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, a matter which has already been explained.

"You shall sanctify him" — in thought and in speech. "The bread of your God" — the food that draws near to Hashem. "I, Hashem, who sanctifies you" — all of you.

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. 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.

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)

And the daughter of a man who is a priest — if she begins to go astray from the sanctity of her father, she is profaned; in fire she shall be burned.

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). 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).

"Ki techal" — in the view of many, it derives from techilah [beginning]; in my opinion it is from the root of chillul [desecration], but it is in the hif'il conjugation [binyan kaved nosaf], like "he shall not profane [lo yachel] his word." On both interpretations the word is from a doubled-root, though it is rare [in this form]. It is also possible that this unusual form is purposeful — so that "hechel" and "techal" not be confused with the meaning of techilah [beginning], on account of the tav being vowelized with a small kamatz. Similarly: "so as not to profane [levilti hachel]." "And the daughter of a priest" — if she has desecrated herself through harlotry, in that she has desecrated the honor of her father. "She shall be burned with fire" — whether she is fully married, or betrothed.

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. 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)

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.

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

And the priest who is exalted above his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil has been poured, and who brought near his offering to wear the vestments — he shall not let the hair of his head grow loose, and his garments he shall not rend.

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.

"The garments" — these are the sacred vestments. "He shall not bare his head nor rend his garments" — from this verse we derive what our Sages, of blessed memory, transmitted regarding the laws of mourning.

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.

והכהן הגדול מאחיו, “and the priest who is exalted above his brethren,” according to the plain meaning of the text seeing that the Torah had already listed special restrictions applicable to ordinary priests who must not marry certain categories of women and who must refrain from defiling themselves other than to the closest relatives, the Torah now adds additional restrictions which apply to the High Priest. This is natural seeing that the High Priest’s duties require him to be even closer to the Shechinah than ordinary priests. The Torah categorized the High Priest’s function as מן המקדש לא יצא, “he must not leave the Sanctuary.” The reason that the High Priest is to marry only a previously unmarried virgin is to ensure that she will be amenable to his outlook and opinions. Such a woman cannot make comparisons between her husband the High Priest and her previous husband. A Midrashic approach: (Sifra Emor 2,1) The words והכהן הגדול מאחיו (emphasis on the letter ה in הגדול) mean that the High Priest must be superior to his priestly colleagues in five areas. He has to be more handsome, physically stronger, materially wealthier, wiser, and more dignified. If he does not have sufficient material wealth, the other priests are to chip in from their own wealth to make him independently wealthy. This is alluded to in the word מאחיו, i.e. his wealth may originate with his brethren. It happened with a priest called Pinchas who was a professional stone mason that he was elected to become High Priest; when his fellow priests came to the quarry from which he made his livelihood, they filled it with gold pieces in order to make him financially independent. A kabbalistic approach to the words והכהן הגדול מאחיו; he is the person who is always conscious who his role model is, i.e. the Lord Himself. He is flanked by his deputy on the right and the president of the Supreme Court on his left. This parallels the vision of the seraphim described in Yuma 37, a reference to the encounter between an angel and Yehoshua the High Priest in Zecharyah 3,7 where the angel assured the High Priest that he would be someone making spiritual progress as opposed to the angels flanking him who are spiritually stationary. This was a hint that the spiritual parameters within which the High Priest was to move consisted of the Sanctuary and what this symbolised. In the verse from Zecharyah mentioned, Yonatan ben Uzziel translated the words בין העומדים האלה as a reference to the angels called seraphim which were flanking him. The Targum based himself on what Isaiah described in his opening vision (Isaiah 6,2) שרפים עומדים ממעל לו, that he had perceived the seraphim as standing in attendance for the Shechinah which he beheld seated on a throne in that vision. There is another Baraitha which discusses these phenomena describing three men walking together, the tallest in the middle, flanked by a גדול on his right and a קטן on his left. When the three angels visited Avraham (Genesis 18,3) the angel Michael was in the centre, Gavriel on his right, and Raphael on his left. If you are fortunate you will appreciate that our verse tries to teach us something analogous and that is why the wording הכהן הגדול has been selected to describe the High Priest. It is reminiscent of Deut. 11,7 את כל מעשה ה' הגדול אשר עשה, “all the great work of Hashem which He did;” The word גדול has first and foremost a qualitative dimension rather than being a description of physical properties possessed by the High Priest; our sages in Horiot 12 understood the second half of our verse in which the Torah directs that the High Priest must not leave his head unshorn, etc., as a direct corollary of his function of being the people’s representative before the Lord. They understand the restrictions mentioned here as applying also to the two people always flanking the High Priest. There is some disagreement as to whether the words לא יפרום, that the High Priest must not rend his garments (as a sign of mourning for a relative who has died), refer only to the visible outer garments or also to the garments covering his skin. The disagreement of the scholars as to the halachah in that instance reflects 1) the view that only people of a lesser stature than he, i.e. ordinary priests, are allowed to rend their garments in acknowledging their state of mourning. 2) the other opinion which holds that the High Priest must tear an inner garment which is not visible. This would be an allusion that the procedure where it is visible is aimed at people of a spiritually lower level, whereas seeing that the High Priest is in a class by himself, addressing himself only to the highest spiritual level, Hashem, does not display such signs of mourning to his peers but gives vent to the emotion of mourning nonetheless by rending his inner garments.

And over any dead person he shall not enter; for his father and for his mother he shall not defile himself.

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

"He shall not come near any dead soul." ["Soul" means] the body of the deceased; the word "body" [guf] is omitted, since "dead" [met] is the adjective — and similarly [in] "and a rich man answers with insolence" [the word for speech is implied], and in "and his food is nourishing" the word "lamb" is omitted. The sense of "he shall not come" — into a tent or a house where the deceased lies. The sense of "for his father or his mother" — since he is commanded to honor them in their lifetime and in their death — and certainly for his brother or his son [as well].

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 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)

And from the sanctuary he shall not depart, and he shall not profane the sanctuary of his God, for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. I am Hashem.

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; 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).

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), 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, 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, then there is no admonition here against his following the bier of his near relative. 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” counted it among the negative commandments in the Hilchoth Gedoloth! Moreover, I have already quoted the Beraitha which is taught in the Torath Kohanim 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. 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]: “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 Hilc...

"He shall not go out from the Sanctuary." The transmitters [of tradition] said: this means he shall not go out after the deceased — and that is the correct interpretation. Some say it refers to the seven days of the inauguration [milu'im], but this cannot be correct, as [the Torah] has already explained "and he filled his hand [with the service]"; moreover, it is also possible [to interpret] that he may not leave the Sanctuary except for the purpose of a commandment.

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

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.

And he shall take a woman in her virginity.

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]. 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, thus commanding him [in a positive manner] to take a virgin as a wife. It is this which our Rabbis have said: “He is forbidden [to marry] a widow, and he is commanded to marry a virgin.” And so the Rabbis taught in the Torath Kohanim: “But a virgin. This teaches that he is commanded to marry a virgin.”

"In her virginity [bevituleyha]." There are nouns in the holy tongue that never appear in the singular, such as ne'urim [youth], zikunim [old age], alumim [prime of life], and betulim [virginity]; and there are nouns in the holy tongue that never appear in the plural, such as nataf, Shechem, zahav [gold], and barzel [iron].

A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who has been profaned, or one who has gone astray — these he shall not take; only a virgin from among his people shall he take as a wife.

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).

"A widow or a divorcée" — [this prohibition applies] whether from a priest or from an Israelite. "Or a desecrated woman or a harlot" — the conjunctive vav is absent [before zonah], as in "sun and moon stood still in its lofty place [zevulah]." The reason for the addition of "but only a virgin" is to make known among his people that the captive woman and the female convert are forbidden to him.

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.

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.”

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.]

And he shall not profane his offspring among his people, for I am Hashem who sanctifies him.

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: “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].

"And he shall not desecrate his offspring" — meaning, [he must not take] a widow or a divorcée even in secret, since he cannot take any of these openly either. Having spoken of the holiness of the priests, [the Torah] proceeds now to speak of the blemishes.

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

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.

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Speak to Aaron, saying: Any man from your descendants throughout their generations in whom there is a blemish shall not draw near to offer an offering before his God.

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, because there in the Scriptural portions He commanded the laws of the offerings: This is the law of the burnt-offering; This is the law of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, 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 Eternal is all fair 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, because it is possible that even Aaron might happen to become impure by touching a corpse or a dead swarming thing. But when He comes to mention the impurity of leprosy or a flux, He again says, What man soever of the seed of Aaron, because this would not happen to the body [of Aaron], for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts. At the end of this section He states, So Moses spoke unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, [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: “Whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish. Why is this said [since it has already been mentioned in the preceding verse]? But because it says 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.” Similarly it has been taught there: “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. ” Similarly it has been taught there: “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.” Now [that which the Torath Kohanim states] “Aaron himself,” means [any] High Priest that shall be in his stead among his sons, [but it does not mean Aaron personally, since, as explained above...

"The bread of his God" — this refers to the altar-offerings. These are the ordinary priests, which is why [the verse] says "anyone who is of the seed of Aaron the priest."

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. 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").

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 since 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) 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)

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.

A man of your offspring who has a blemish. Here it says in him a blemish [bo mum], but later it reverses and says a blemish in him [mum bo]. And here it says who will have [asher yihyeh], implying the future, and afterward it says any man who has a blemish [asher bo mum], implying the present. And what is the reason given for this matter in that very statement, where it says for any man who has a blemish shall not approach? And what Rashi explains — that it is not proper for him to approach, as in Offer it now to your governor (Malachi 1:8) — is not explicitly stated in the verse. Therefore I say that the ancients who were experts in the sciences, knew about every blemish that would develop in a person before it happened, due to what sin they saw in him. For example, if they knew that he accepted bribes, they knew that he would eventually become blind. And if they saw in him a haughty walk, they knew that he would eventually suffer a broken leg. The expression of his face testified against him, meaning they recognized from his facial appearance some negative trait within him that would blemish a specific limb, and he would eventually develop a visible defect and should be disqualified from the priesthood based on his eventual outcome. Therefore it says, Any man from your offspring who has in him a blemish, meaning that his facial expression testifies that eventually he will have a blemish, because from his actions it is recognizable that he will eventually develop this blemish. Thus he is disqualified based on his eventual outcome. And it gives a reason for this matter: For any man who has a blemish, etc. — don’t you agree that if the blemish is already present in him, it is certainly inappropriate for him to offer sacrifices, as it says Try offering it to your governor! (Malachi 1:8). Therefore, also one who will have a blemish in the future should be disqualified from the priesthood. For this reason, when giving the reason, it doesn’t use the future tense “will have.” All this refers to someone who wasn’t born with his blemish, since his actions caused the occurrence of the blemish, as through his actions he damaged one of his limbs. That’s why in these two verses it says in him a blemish — his existence preceded the existence of the blemish, because the phrase “in him” refers to the existence of the person who came first, and afterward the blemish developed in him. And still we have not heard whether if one was born with a blemish, if the blemish disqualifies or not, because there is room to say that perhaps specifically one who has both defects in his soul and in his body should be disqualified from the priesthood and not bring God’s offering. But for one born with a blemish, who has no defect in his soul but only in his body, you might say that it does not disqualify him. Therefore, the Torah teaches below has a blemish in him, he shall not approach to offer the bread of his God, etc. And this refers to one whose blemish preceded his birth into the world. And this is its explanation: Any man of the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish in him shall not approach to offer the offerings of the Lord. And although it already mentioned above who has a blemish, nevertheless it only mentioned there the bread of his God. And one might have thought that this only applies to the bread of his God such as meal offerings and the showbread, but that other offerings of the Lord he is permitted to offer. Therefore, the Torah teaches he shall not approach to offer the offerings of the Lord, to equate all offerings regarding one who has a blemish. And one might have thought specifically regarding one who has a blemish, but not regarding one with a blemish [i.e., born with it]. Therefore, the Torah teaches has a blemish in him, he shall not approach to offer the bread of his God. And it mentions the bread of his God not to exclude the offerings, for all offerings have been equated regarding one who in him is blemish, and the same applies to one with a blemish in him. It only mentions the bread of his God because it wants to say afterwards that even the bread of his God, which has extra holiness more than those that go up in flames, nevertheless he is permitted to eat from them, as it immediately says, He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, and all the more so from the offerings. And what it says and of the holy shall he eat, these are the lesser holy sacrifices, because there is room to say that since these are not permitted to a non-priest, like the meal offerings of the most holy things that Moses ate, and so it appears in the Yalkut at the end of Parshat Tzav (8:518). And in this way, we can also explain why regarding animals it sometimes says a blemish in it and sometimes in it a blemish, because all blemishes disqualify an animal, whether it was born with its blemish or whether its blemish developed later.

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.

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.

For any man in whom there is a blemish shall not draw near — a man who is blind, or lame, or who has a deformed nose, or a limb too long.

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?]”. 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). 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).

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 Kohanim and in the Gemara of Tractate Bechoroth 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].The term charum is of the expressions: None ‘cheirem’ (doomed) who shall be ‘yachoram’ (doomed of man); ‘v’hacharamti’(and I shall utterly destroy) their cities, 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: “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.’ 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; upon ‘gabi’ (my back) plowed the plowers. Now Scripture mentioned first [in Verse 18 before us] blemishes of missing limbs: a blind man, or a lame, and afterwards [itmentioned 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 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 s...

"Charum" — the opposite of saru'a [distorted-limbed]; thus charum derives from the root of cherem [a net]. "Saru'a" — from the root of hishtare'a [to sprawl, be elongated].

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).

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

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.]

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

Or a man who has a broken leg or a broken arm.

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

Or one who is hunchbacked, or who is a dwarf, or who has a defect in his eye, or who has a scab, or who has a rash, or whose testes are wounded.

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 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). 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). 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”.

"Or gibben" — close in derivation to "humped mountains [gabnunim]"; the nun is part of the root, and it is an adjective. "Dak" — it means literally thin, short of stature. "Tevalul in his eye" — some say it derives from tevel [pollution], indicating a corruption; others say it derives from belulah beshemen [mixed with oil]; the tav is added [to the root] on both interpretations. "Garav" — also in the eye, according to many. "Yalefet" — meaning something that adheres, from the root of "and Samson grasped [vayilfot]"; others say it means a twisting, from the root of "and the man trembled and turned [vayilalfet]" — and the yod is added, like the yod of yitzhar. "Meruach" — an adjective, from the root of ru'ach [wind, spirit]. "Ashekh" — the testicle. After all these details, [the Torah] states a general rule: "any man who has a blemish in him."

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

גבן, “hunchback;”דק, “a dwarf;” תבלול, “malformed eyes.” מרוח, “psoriasis"

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.

מרוח אשך, whose testicles have been crushed.

Any man in whom there is a blemish, from the offspring of Aaron the priest, shall not draw near to offer the offerings of Hashem; a blemish is in him — the offering of his God he shall not draw near to offer.

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

The sense of "a blemish in him" [is elliptical], like [the verse] "his father and his mother he cursed" [where the object is stated separately].

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.

The offering of his God, of the most holy things and of the holy things, he may eat.

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

"The bread of his God" — the showbread, the guilt-offering, and the sin-offering, which are holy of holies, as distinguished from the peace-offerings; for the peace-offerings too are [called] holy. "And from the holy things" — the tithe and the firstborn.

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.

However, to the veil he shall not enter, and to the altar he shall not draw near, for a blemish is in him; and he shall not profane My sanctuaries, for I am Hashem who sanctifies them.

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). 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). 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).

"But he shall not come to the veil" — since he is the High Priest, he may also not approach the altar.

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. 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)

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.

And Moses spoke with Aaron and with his sons and with all the children of Israel.

וידבר משה AND MOSES TOLD this command, 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).

The sense of "and to all the children of Israel" — so that they not slaughter for them peace-offerings that have a blemish; were it not for the received tradition this [would be the plain meaning]. Because [the Torah] mentioned that the blemished [priest] may eat of the sacred food, it warns that the one who eats must be [ritually] pure.

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.