פרשת אמור — ראשון (Aliyah 1)

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).

SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS. After charging the Israelites, and the sons of Aaron who are included among them, to be holy,1In chapters 18, 19, and 20. the Lord told the sons of Aaron that they are commanded to keep themselves from other things, for they are the ministers of God. It is possible that speak unto the priests refers to the section which is mentioned above,2That is, in the above-noted chapters. for the Torah is in the hands of the kohanim.3It is the duty of the kohanim to teach these laws to the children of Israel. See Deut. 31:9; 17:8-13. AND SAY UNTO THEM. This refers to the commandments which they alone are obligated to keep.4The laws, which follow. FOR THE DEAD. Le-nefesh (for the dead) refers to the dead.5The word nefesh usually refers to a living body. The word yittamma (defile) is a hitpa'el. The tet6Of yittamma. receives a dagesh because the tav7Of the hitpa'el. is, swallowed.8By the tet. In other words, the dagesh compensates for the missing tav of the hitpae'el form. The meaning of be-amav (among his people) is among all of Israel, who are his people.9Be-amav (among his people) literally means in his people. Hence I.E.'s comment.

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 defiled as a result of that person's doing. This is based on Numbers 6,9: וטמא ראש נזרו which means that under normal circumstances the same guilt applies to the person causing the sin as to the one committing it. This is why Maimonides writes in chapter 5,20 of his treatise about the laws of the Nazirite that in this case if the Nazir himself was unaware of committing a sin neither he nor the person defiling him deliberately is subject to מלקות, corporal punishment. Maimonides quotes the verse in Numbers 6,9 as the basis for his ruling. He understands that verse to mean that culpability does not occur until the Nazirite himself defiles his head. This ruling appears incomprehensible. 1) Why should the Nazirite legislation not serve as a בנין אב, as a model for many other similar situations where two parties are involved in committing a sin, the first one being guilty of לפני עור לא תתן מכשול? Furthermore, the situation involving the Nazirite required a special verse to exclude culpability because I could have learned a קל וחומר from the situation in which he shaved his hair and is guilty. Seeing that defiling himself is a more serious sin than shaving off his hair, the Torah had to write a verse to tell us that even defiling himself does not carry the penalty of מלקות. If this is so, it follows that had it not been for this קל וחומר, I would not have needed to write a single verse to exclude the Nazirite's not being guilty of מלקות if someone had deliberately defiled him. In fact the query against Maimonides's ruling in chapter 3 of his treatise on the laws for mourners would have been still stronger! I believe the true reason why Maimonides ruled as he did is based on the Talmud in Nazir 44. This is what the Talmud writes there: "if in the case of someone defiling the Nazirite we do not treat the person causing the impurity as equally guilty as the person who has become defiled (although as a result of this action the preceding days of the Nazirite's abstention are completely invalidated), then in the parallel case of someone shaving off the Nazirite's hair I most certainly would not treat such a person as guilty of corporal punishment (seeing the result of his action did not cause the Nazirite to lose more than a maximum of thirty days of the preceding days during which he had not shaved)! The Torah therefore had to write the word תער לא יעביר על ראשו that the Nazirite must not allow someone else to shave him, to insure that I do not learn such a קל וחומר. According to the Talmud we equate the spelling לא יעביר with the spelling לא יעבור, i.e. that he himself must not apply the razor to his own hair or to someone else's hair. Rashi corrects this wording by saying "someone else must not apply a razor to the hair of the Nazirite." We now need to examine why the Talmud assumes that the word לא יעביר (which is spelled defective) refers to someone other than the Nazirite himself applying the razor to his hair. If the Talmud applied the principle of using our tradition as the basis for the spelling, the word יעבר should have been spelled יעביר with the letter י to indicate the fact that it is meant transitively, i.e. לשון הפעיל. Even if we were to argue that the absence of the letter י is not crucial to the meaning, at least the word לו is missing without which I would not know that the meaning of יעבר without the letter י is transitive and that the Nazirite must not shave others! I believe that the Talmud concentrated on the fact that the Torah used the expression תער לא יעבר על ראשו, "a razor must not pass over his head," instead of the simple לא יגלח את ראשו, "he must not shave his head," or at least לא יעביר על ראשו with the letter י to indicate the transitive meaning of the expression. If the Torah had used the simple expression we would have known that the prohibition applied to the person who was commanded not to shave rather than to the action of the razor. The word יעביר would refer to the Nazir himself who is mentioned adjacently in that verse. The Torah would then have attributed the prohibition to the person committing it and not to the action of the razor. This would not be the impression if we accept the wording תער לא יעבור על ראשו, "a razor must not be applied to his head;" this wording suggests that the principal concern of the Torah is the fact that the hair of the Nazirite is shaved, regardless by whom. This is what the Talmud had in mind with the words: קרי ביה לא יעבור הוא ולא יעביר לו אחר, "read as if it said: 'neither he himself nor someone else must apply the razor to his head.'" Clearly the word is meant to prohibit shaving the Nazirite either by himself or someone else. The words קרי ביה in the Talmud are not really accurate but they describe a concept rather than a grammatical comment. We can now extrapolate to the laws of כלאים in 19,19 where the Torah wrote: ובגד כלאים שעטנז לא יעלה עליך, "a garment made of a mixture of linen and wool shall not cover you" (יעלה עליך) instead of writing לא תעלה עליך. The word תעלה is transitive and applies to the person putting such a garment on the wearer. The word יעלה is intransitive and applies to the garment rather than to the person putting it on. The Torah's wording makes it plain that it is immaterial who puts the garment on the wearer. If he wears it knowingly he is guilty of violating the prohibition of כלאים. This is why Maimonides rules in chapter 10 subsection 1 of his treatise Hilchot Kilayim that "if someone deliberately places a garment containing a mixture of linen and wool on a fellow Jew he is subject to 39 lashes." Similarly, any ruling in our situation dealing with the defilement of the priest is based on the wording לא יטמא, "he (the priest) must not become defiled." The fact that the Torah does not add a pronoun indicating that it is only the priest himself who must not defile himself makes the verse a warning to anyone else not to contribute to the defilement of the priest. It follows that anyone who defiles a priest, be it the priest himself or someone else, is subject to the penalty of 39 lashes. Maimonides is consistent in all his rulings then. This brings us to the reason why the Torah saw fit to repeat the word אמר, by writing אמר ואמרת. It is simply that the Torah commands both the priest himself and anyone else not to defile him. The word אמר tells the priest not to defile himself, whereas the word ואמרת tells others not to defile the priest. Perhaps the word אלהם, "to them," refers back to the Israelites (not the priests) who are commanded to observe all the commandments. You will note that at the very end of this chapter (verse 24) the Torah writes: "Moses spoke to Aaron, to his sons and to all the children of Israel." This indicates that the legislation in this chapter is addressed to all of the Israelites. This justifies our explanation that also at the beginning of the chapter the Torah extends a warning to the whole people, not just to the priests, that they must not cause the priests to become ritually defiled. Torat Kohanim on 21,24 writes as follows: "The words וידבר משה are a warning to Aaron through his children whereas the words אל כל בני ישראל are a warning to the sons by the Israelites. They are each warned to ensure that the others do not become guilty of the sin of ritual impurity." Both what we read in Torat Kohanim and what we have written ourselves are דברי אלוקים חיים, legitimate exegesis of the text of the Torah. לנפש לא יטמא, "he must not become defiled through a dead body." Torat Kohanim derives from this word נפש that contact with an amount of blood equivalent to 86 grams (רביעית) is sufficient to confer ritual impurity on the priest. I have seen that Maimonides writes as follows in chapter 3 subsection 1 of his Hilchot Avel: "There is no halachic difference between impurities of the body of the dead and impurities which emanated in the body of the dead (such as blood which oozed out) seeing the Torah used the expression נפש when prohibiting ritual defilement through the dead." Commentators attack Maimonides for this statement basing themselves on a Baraitha in Torat Kohanim which writes as follows: "From our verse (21,1) I only learn that one defiles oneself through contact with the dead body itself. Whence do we know that one also becomes defiled through contact with the blood (of the dead person?)" Answer: This is why the Torah wrote the otherwise extraneous word לנפש. How do I know that all other excretions from the dead body also confer ritual impurity on contact? This is why the Torah added the word אלהם." Thus far Torat Kohanim. Kesseph Mishneh defends Maimonides by pointing out that he must have thought that the word לנפש is sufficient to teach us that everything which originates in the dead body confers the same degree of ritual impurity on all those who come in contact with it; there is no need for further scriptural proof; any additional word in the Torah is only in the nature of an אסמכתא, something to jog our memory. Thus far Kesseph Mishneh. I do not accept the comment by the author of Kesseph Mishneh. What gave Maimonides the right to come up with a new approach other than the one of the Baraitha? The fact of the matter is that Maimonides bases himself on another Baraitha which he found in Pessikta. This is what is written there: "The words אמר ואמרת are meant to tell us that the adults are warned to see to it that the minors do not become ritually impure; the words לנפש לא יטמא are intended to tell us that even a רביעית דם, a small amount of 86 grams of blood is enough to confer ritual impurity on contact if it has escaped from the dead body." Thus far the Pessikta. The Baraitha we just quoted is mentioned in Yevamot 114. We are entitled to understand that Baraitha as including all other excretions from the dead body as being included in this legislation based on the word לנפש, seeing the author used the repetition of the words אמר ואמרת as commanding the adults to warn the minors concerning this legislation. I am quite certain that the author of the Kesseph Mishneh had not seen or remembered this latter Baraitha. Proof of this is to be found in something the same author wrote in the same chapter we have quoted earlier in subsection 12. "Adult priests are responsible to see that they do not cause a priest who is a minor to become ritually impure. If, however, the priest who is a minor causes himself to become ritually impure it is not the task of the Jewish court to prevent this." So far Maimonides on the subject. According to Kesseph Mishneh this is in accordance with Rashi's interpretation of the meaning אמר ואמרת. Clearly, if the author of Kesseph Mishneh had known about this Baraitha he would not have written that Maimonides based his ruling on Rashi's exegesis which is of much more recent origin. There remains the question of how anyone derived from the word לנפש that a רביעית of blood confers ritual impurity on contact? Perhaps we must understand that the meaning of the word לנפש is confined to the ability of blood to confer ritual impurity to the category of impurity called טומאת מת, as distinct from other categories of ritual impurities. It would have sufficed for the Torah to write למת לא יטמא that the priest must not become ritually impure through a dead body. The fact that the Torah added the word לנפש led our sages to conclude that an amount of blood which is sufficient to keep an organism alive is the amount which is capable of conferring the ritual impurity associated with dead bodies. People who are themselves ritually impure only through indirect contact with the dead are not included in that definition of לנפש. לא יטמא. "He must not become defiled." The Torah switched to the use of the singular although the verse had commenced with G'd addressing the Israelites in the plural, i.e. אלהם. According to the reasoning of the scholar who explained the repetition of the words אמר ואמרת as a warning that a person other than the priest himself should also not cause the priest to become defiled, the switch from plural to singular is easy to understand, i.e. the people (pl.) are commanded not to defile the priest (sing.). In addition, the Torah may have been afraid to write לא יטמאו, "they shall not become defiled" as the impression would have been that the Torah only minded if the priests as a group became defiled, not if an individual priest became defiled. The Torah therefore worded the commandment in the singular i.e. יטמא to show the Torah shows its concern for the defilement of each individual priest. Furthermore, the Torah had to avoid the comparison of this legislation with Leviticus 10,9 where the Torah commanded that the priests were not to enter the Tabernacle while intoxicated. In that instance the legislation was phrased as applicable only in connection with the priests entering the precincts of the Tabernacle drunk when they were about to perform the sacrificial service. The impression left was that at times when the priests were not engaged in service they were free to indulge in wine and alcohol. It would have been easy to deduce from there that when the priests were not about to engage in sacrificial service they are at liberty to defile themselves. The Torah used the singular when legislating this commandment to make it clear that the priests are not to defile themselves at any time, except for the occasions listed in subsequent verses. This teaches that the prohibition for a priest to defile himself is totally unconnected to the Temple-service and its requirements. The Temple-service, after all, is not in danger of becoming defunct due to the temporary impurity of a single priest. The duty of the priest to remain in a state of ritual purity is one that devolves upon him independent of any consideration for the function he can perform only while in such a state.

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

EXCEPT FOR HIS KIN. It had appeared to us that the meaning of she'ero (His kin) is similar to she'er (near of kin) in None of you…to any that is near of kin to him (Lev. 18:6). In other words, she'ero is a general term,10Meaning a close relative. with the details for his mother, and for his father following. The meaning of ba'al be-amav (a chief man among his people) (v. 4) is that a husband11Who is a kohen. shall not defile himself for his wife. However, since we saw that our teachers transmitted to us the law that a kohen is permitted to defile himself for his wife,12Yevamot 22b. the first interpretation falls away. They employed the word she'er as a support,13She'ero (his kin) literally means his flesh. According to the rabbis the reference is to a wife. The sages render ki im le-she'ero (except for his kin), except for his wife. According to I.E. the plain meaning of she'ero is not his wife. He believes that the rabbis used this verse as a support for a law which they knew by tradition. as I explained in my comments on the phrase unto a foreign people (Ex. 21:8).14According to the rabbis unto a foreign people means to any stranger. According to I.E. this is not the literal meaning of this phrase. The rabbis merely used this verse as a support. See I.E. on Ex. 21:8 (Vol. 2, pp. 458,459). The rabbis said that the meaning of ba'al is, a chief who rules over the people, as in the owner thereof (be-alav) not being with it (Ex. 22:13).15According to the rabbis the meaning of lo yittamma ba'al be-amav (He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people) is: "Seeing that he is fit to become the highest and most honored one among his people [i.e., a high priest], it (Scripture) warns him not to profane his distinction with the impurity of the dead" (Nachmanides, Chavel translation). The reason Scripture mentions the mother of the kohen before the father is that in most cases the male lives longer than the female.16In most cases the kohen will mourn for his mother before he does so for his father. Hence she is mentioned first.

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 using the קל וחומר (according to the principle דיו לבוא מן הדין כנדון) as our exegetical instrument. All a קל וחומר can accomplish is to teach that a situation is similar to the one which forms the basis of the קל וחומר; It cannot teach additional halachot of a more stringent nature. The Torah permits the son to defile himself for the sake of near relatives whereas the prohibition to defile himself at the death of more distant relatives remains in force. Furthermore, in the event that the son does not want to defile himself, he is forced to do so as part of honouring his father who has died. This is the meaning of the words לה יטמא, "he must defile himself for her sake." Torat Kohanim explain these words by saying: "it is a positive commandment for every priest to defile himself at the death of any of the seven relatives mentioned in our verse." While it is true that the Torah wrote this expression only next to the sister of the priest, Torat Kohanim already explained this in connection with a true story involving a priest called Joseph whose wife died on Passover eve and the priest did not want to defile himself so as not to forego the commandment to offer the Passover sacrifice, etc. The local rabbinic authorities forced that husband to defile himself and take part in the burial of his wife. Thus far the story related in Torat Kohanim. The story proves that the authorities did not restrict the meaning of the words לה יטמא as applicable only in the event a priest loses a sister. What all this proves is that one must defile oneself for the sake of any of the relatives enumerated in verses 2 and 3. It follows that if I had derived the directive to defile oneself at the death of one's father based on exegesis alone I could not have arrived at such a law as I would not have been able to be certain that the man who died was indeed the father of the son described here. I certainly would not have been entitled to refrain from offering the Passover sacrifice if such a "father" had died on the eve of Passover. Doubts concerning the application of a biblical commandment cannot be resolved through abrogation of that commandment, even temporarily. Not only would such a son not be permitted to defile himself on the father's grave based on the doubt (according to Maimonides and Pri Chadash who hold that doubt concerning a biblical commandment's applicability may be resolved by a lenient ruling), but even according to those who hold that we never apply a lenient ruling when the doubt concerns a biblical injunction the son could still not defile himself merely on the chance that the deceased was not his real father and as a result postpone celebrating the Passover on time. After all, no doubt exists about the need to perform the commandments connected with Passover. The Torah therefore had to write both the words לאמו ולאביו to tell us that a son who is a priest must defile himself for the purpose of bringing either his father or his mother to burial. Furthermore, we are dealing here with a situation where the son's status as a priest is based only on the assumption that his father who claims to be his father is also a priest, another assumption which is itself not based on definitie evidence. In view of the fact that neither son nor father can establish a definitve claim as to their paternity and priesthood respectively, I would not have allowed the son to violate his legal status and defile himself on the basis of a חזקה that the man he knew as his father was indeed his father unless the Torah had decreed this specifically ולבנו ולבתו ולאחיו, "and for the death of his son, his daughter or his brother." Torat Kohanim comment as follows on this verse: "The Torah should have been content to mention the son and the daughter; why did the Torah also have to write that the son must defile himself for the sake of burying his father and his mother? If the Torah wrote that a father must defile himself in order to bury his son or daughter whom he is not obligated to honour, is it not logical that he certainly has to defile himself for the sake of burying his father or mother whom he is obligated to honour?" If this reasoning were correct, I would have had to conclude that the words "son or daughter" were meant to apply to children who were aborted and had never drawn a breath of life. The Torah therefore had to write the words "son and daughter" to ensure that I would not apply the קל וחומר we just described. The Torah told us that only sons and daughters who had demonstrated viability qualify for their father the priest defiling himself at their burial." Thus far Torat Kohanim. I find this difficult to understand. If it were correct, all the Torah had to write were the words לאמו ולבנו, and I would have derived this information from these two examples. The word לאביו would have been quite unnecessary. Also, according to the argument that seeing the mother is a definite blood-relation therefore I could not have concluded that the father also qualified for the son defiling himself at his grave unless the Torah had stated so specifically, we could have extrapolated this from the words "his son or his daughter." Whose father is known with certainty? Yet the Torah spelled out that the father must defile himself at the grave of a son whose identity as his son is based on an assumption, חזקה only. We cannot even argue that the identity of the father is less certain than the identtiy of either son or daughter (as far as their respective paternity is concerned) for we find that the author of Torat Kohanim used their identities as the basis for his קל וחומר to include the father in the same legislation. So we are back to the question of why the Torah had to spell out that the "son" has to defile himself at the burial of his "father?" If the only reason the Torah wrote "his father" was to teach that the commandment to defile himself applied only to children who were viable, so that the term "father" applied in the full meaning of the word, we could have derived this from the fact that the Torah wrote לאמו though this too could have been derived from קל וחומר seeing we already have the words בנו ובתו. There is no reason to say that we need both the words לאביו ולאמו together in order to exclude aborted fetuses; why would the word "father" or "mother" not be sufficient to teach us that rule? Besides, if we really needed both these words why did the author of Torat Kohanim go to the trouble to demonstrate that each word by itself was required separately? We already needed both words together to exclude the aborted infants from the regulation discussed by the Torah in our verse? However, another statement concerning the words לאמו ולאביו at the end of Torat Kohanim presents a problem. We read there as follows: "If the Torah had only written the word לאביו and had not also written the word לאמו I would have reasoned that if the Torah demanded that the son defile himself for the burial of his father whose identity is based merely on חזקה, an assumption, such a son most certainly would have to defile himself at the death of his mother who is his biological mother beyond any doubt! I would then have countered that the mother's status as a priest's wife is not constant since she stands to lose it on the death of her husband or through a divorce. Therefore the Torah had to write the word לאמו to also include her in the number of blood relations for whose burial the son who is a priest has to defile himself." We see that the Torah had to write the word לאמו to include a mother who had already forfeited her status as a priest's wife prior to her death! If so, what word is there left for exegetical use to exclude aborted infants from the legislation that the father who is a priest must defile himself on their account? On the other hand, if you use the word to exclude these aborted fetuses, which word is left to include that the son, the priest, must defile himself over a dead mother who had become נתחללה, lost her former status as the wife of a priest? Besides, whence do I know that the father the priest has to defile himself on account of a daughter who had lost her status as the wife of a priest? One could argue that case in either direction! One could say that seeing the son has to honour his mother regardless of her marital status, he also has to defile himself on her account when she dies; on the other hand, one could argue that the Torah had already made it plain that the fact that a woman forfeited her marital status as the wife of a priest did not affect her blood relationship to her son and therefore should have no bearing on the need of her biological son the priest to defile himself at her funeral; also that just as the son has to defile himself for his mother, so, in the event that he has a daughter he has to defile himself if she dies. Let us examine precisely how the author of Torat Kohanim arrived at the conclusion that the son the priest must defile himself on account of a mother who had lost her status as the wife of a priest. Was this conclusion based on the extraneous word לאמו? Perhaps the word לאמו was not at all superfluous and we needed it to prove that defilement is in order seeing the mother's status was inferior as she was subject to becoming מתחללת, losing her privileges as the wife of a priest, something that cannot happen to the father except if he does something wrong himself. Similarly, the author of Torat Kohanim had been careful to point out already at the beginning of his discourse: "What distinguishes the father? The fact that he is not subject to losing his status as a priest." This meant that this consideration established the basis for a certain asymmetry in the status of the "father the priest" and the "mother the priest's wife." The remarkable thing is that even though in effect the mother died without ever losing her status as the wife of a priest, the fact that she might have done so is considered as sufficient reason to rate her priestly status as inferior to that of her husband. Following this train of thought, we are entitled to the conclusion that if the mother had indeed already been disqualified from being the wife of a priest her son would really not be allowed to defile himself at her burial. We are therefore compelled to say that the author of Torat Kohanim proceeded from the premise that mention of the word לאמו means that a priest has to defile himself for his mother regardless of whether or not she has in effect been disqualified from being the wife of a priest. Now the fact remains that if the Torah had only written the word לאביו I would have been entitled to argue that the mother is inferior in status to her husband the priest even while she enjoys her status as the wife of her husband the priest because of her potential disqualification. Now that the Torah also wrote the word לאמו the Torah made clear that even if she had become disqualified her son the priest has to defile himself on her account when she dies. You can apply the same reasoning to the word ולבתו, and on account of his daughter. By the simple expedient of mentioning the daughter the Torah included a daughter who had become disqualified as a possible wife for a priest. Her father the priest must defile himself on her account in the event she dies. The only factor which governs all this legislation is the biological relationship. Seeing a mother or daughter who do not qualify as a wife for a priest have not ceased to be called mother or daughter respectively, the legislation for the son or father to defile himself is in place. This brings us back to the question why the Torah had to write the word לאמו, seeing we could have derived the law for the mother from the word בתו? Nonetheless, if the Torah had not written the word לאמו, I would not have concluded that the word לאביו was meant to exclude children which had been aborted before they became viable, but I would have concluded that it excluded אמו, his mother. It is far more more reasonable to exclude the mother of the priest than to search for such far-fetched exclusions as the need to defile oneself at the death of premature stillborn children. The reason I would have excluded the mother would be her status, i.e. the fact that she is constantly subject to losing her status as a priest's wife and the privileges which accrue to her thanks to that fact. We would have limited the fact that the daughter qualifies for her father defiling himself as applying to a daughter who had not actually jeopardised her status as a priest's wife, or at least as potentially a priest's wife, whereas I would have limited the exclusion of the priest's mother to a mother who had actually lost that status. A mother who had not jeopardised her status as the wife of a priest would qualify for her son the priest defiling himself at her funeral. I would have used a קל וחומר extrapolating from the word בתו to arrive at that conclusion. When discussing the status of a daughter, even one who had forfeited her status, we would have remembered that she is still called "his daughter" in the Torah regardless of whether she qualifies for marriage to a priest or not. We would then have reverted to apply that same reasoning to a daughter who had jeopardised her status by comparing her to a mother who had jeopardised her status, based on the unnecessary word לאביו. We would have reasoned that just as a mother who has jeopardised her status as the wife of a priest does not cause her son the priest to defile herself on account of her funeral, so a daughter in her condition most certainly does not confer the duty on her father the priest to defile himself on account of her death. We would have argued this in spite of the fact that the very word בתו in the Torah implies that this daughter did not jeopardise her status as a blood relative by losing her status as a woman a priest may marry. The word בתו would only commit us if I did not either have a restrictive clause or a קל וחומר to counter our reading of the text. We would therefore read the word בתו as applying only to a daughter who had not lost her status, i.e. לא נתחללה. What emerges from all these examinations of the deeper meaning of our text is that if the Torah had not written the word לאביו which could have misled us into thinking that it was intended to exclude the son the priest defiling himself at his mother's funeral, there would indeed have been no need to write the word לאמו. I would have derived all the הלכות I needed from the words בנו ובתו, his son or his daughter as mentioned earlier. If the Torah had not written the word לאמו from which the error concerning excluding the father whose status is based only on חזקה would have resulted, there would have been no need to write the word לאביו. If so, you would ask why does the Torah not simply write only לאביו, leaving out the word לאמו altogether? In order to forestall this question Torat Kohanim explained that the word was intended to exclude premature stillborn infants. Seeing that this is so there is no more room to argue that the word לאמו or לאביו should have been written by itself. The moment the Torah would write only one of these two words I would arrive at an erroneous conclusion and demolish the whole pyramid we have built thus far. The Torah was therefore very clever in writing exactly what it did. Torat Kohanim was conscious of this and informed us of a possible error we could make if the Torah had not written precisely the words we find in our text.

הקרובה [AND FOR HIS SISTER A VIRGIN] THAT IS NIGH UNTO HIM — This is intended to include the sister who was only betrothed and has therefore not yet left her father's house and who is consequently still near to him (Sifra, Emor, Section 1 1; Yevamot 60a), for it continues 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).

THAT IS NEAR UNTO HIM. In that she is his sister from his father and his mother.17That is near indicates that the sister spoken of is a full sister. Now, aside from those mentioned,18In verses 2 and 3. a chief (v. 4) shall not defile himself for any of his people, be they kohanim or Israelites.

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).

TO PROFANE HIMSELF. The lamed19Of le-hechallo. has a dagesh in it to compensate for the missing other lamed.20Hechallo is spelled with one lamed. However, it comes from a root that has two lameds. The dagesh in hechallo compensates for the missing root letter. Le-hechallo (to profane himself) is an infinitive in the nifal.

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 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 BALDNESS UPON THEIR HEAD. Over the dead. THE CORNERS OF THEIR BEARD. Over the dead, as is the practice in places in the land of the Chaldeans. The meaning of the corners of thy beard (Lev. 19:27) is thus clarified.21It too refers to an act of mourning. See I.E. on Lev. 19:27. Saratet (cuttings) means even one cut.22Saratet (cuttings) is singular. Hence I.E's. comment. Israel has already been cautioned not to do these things.23Not to cut their flesh, to shave the corners of their beards, or to make themselves bald. See Lev. 19:27,28. The reason Scripture warns the kohanim24After already having told the Israelites. about this is that one who has a bald head, or whose beard has been shorn, or whose flesh is cut shall not serve before the Lord.

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)

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).

AND NOT PROFANE THE NAME OF GOD. The reason being, for the offerings made by fire…they do offer.25For the offerings made by fire…they do offer refers to and not profane the name of God, not to They shall be holy unto their God.

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.

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".

WOMAN THAT IS A HARLOT. If we follow the plain meaning of the text then we do not find in all of Scripture the word zonah (harlot) to have any but its literal meaning.26That is, a zonah is a woman who sells her body. According to the rabbis a zonah is a woman who had intercourse with an individual whom she is not permitted to marry, i.e., a woman who has relations with a close relative or with a non-Jew. Such a woman is considered a zonah even if the intercourse was not with her consent. Hence I.E.'s comment. The meaning of and have given a boy for a harlot (zonah) (Joel 4:3) is also as I have explained.27In other words, zonah in Joel 4:3 refers to a harlot. It means that they gave a young man in payment for sexual favors. OR PROFANED. A woman who is not known as a harlot.28A woman who is not a harlot but has been defiled. I.E. does not define how the woman was profaned. However, from the context it appears that I.E. refers to a woman who is not a prostitute but had intercourse with someone who is not a kohen. It is also possible that I.E. refers to a woman who is promiscuous but not a prostitute. It should be noted that according to the rabbis the reference is to a woman born of a marriage between a kohen and a woman prohibited to him (Kiddushin 77a). According to the plain meaning, it would appear from the words of Ezekiel29Ezek. 44:22. that the widow of a kohen30That is, only the widow of a kohen. is permitted to marry other kohanim.31Ezek. 44:22 seems to imply that the only widow a kohen may marry is the widow of another kohen, for Ezekiel states, Neither shall they take for their wives a widow…but they shall take…a widow that is the widow of a priest. The words of tradition32To the effect that a kohen may marry any widow. See Kiddushin 78b. are thus true.33Despite the plain meaning of Ezek. 44:22, for our chapter (v. 7) does not prohibit a kohen from marrying any widow. We thus must interpret Ezek. 44:22 as follows: Neither shall a kohen gadol take for their wives a widow…but some of the kohanim, that is, a common kohen, may take a widow (any widow, not only the widow of a kohen). See Kiddushin 78b.

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.

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).

THOU SHALT SANCTIFY HIM THEREFORE. In mind34Think of the kohen in a respectful manner. and in speech. THE BREAD35Hebrew, lechem. OF THY GOD. Food36Lechem usually refers to bread. Hence I.E.'s comment. which is offered to God. I THE LORD, WHO SANCTIFY YOU.37Hebrew, lakhem, which is plural. 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.

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).

IF SHE PROFANE HERSELF BY PLAYING THE HARLOT. Many believe that techel (profane) is related to techillah (beginning).38This interpretation renders ki techel li-zenot (if she profane herself by playing the harlot) as if she begins to play the harlot. However, I believe that it is related to the word chillul (profane) but it is a hifil. Compare, he shall not break (yachel)39Or profane. his word (Num. 30:3). According to both interpretations the word comes from a double root.40Its root is chet, lamed, lamed. However, it is irregular.41For its prefix is vocalized with a tzere rather than with a kamatz as similar roots are in the hifil. Compare, achel (I will begin), tachel (she will begin), etc. It is possible that the word hechel (profaned) (Ezek. 20:9) and the word techel are both irregular in that the tav42The tav of techel is vocalized with a tzereh43Literally, a small kamatz. so that it not is confused in meaning with techillah (beginning).44Beginning and profane both come from the same root, chet, lamed, lamed. If both were similarly vocalized, we would confuse them. Similarly, hechel (profaned)45Hechel is vocalized with a tzere rather than with a kamatz so that it not be confused with hachel (begin) (Deut. 2:24). in that it should not be profaned (Ezek. 20:9). AND THE DAUGHTER OF ANY PRIEST…SHE SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. If she profaned herself by harlotry, for she profaned the honor of her father. SHE SHALL BE BURNT WITH FIRE. Whether she is either married or betrothed.46Hebrew, arusah. The reference is to the first stage of marriage. During this phase the woman lives in the house of her parents.

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).

THE GARMENTS. The reference is to the holy garments. SHALL NOT LET THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD GO LOOSE, NOR REND HIS CLOTHES. We learn from this verse what our sages transmitted regarding the laws of mourning.47According to the rabbis a mourner has to rend his garments and is prohibited from cutting his hair. Our verse shows that the latter are mourning practices.

'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).

NEITHER SHALL HE GO IN TO ANY DEAD BODY. Nafshot met is to be read as if written nafshot guf met (dead body). The word guf (body)48Guf is masculine. is missing, for met (dead) is an adjective.49Modifying guf. Met is masculine. It cannot modify nafshot, which is feminine. Hence I.E.'s comment. Similarly, But the rich answers impudent50Translated literally. (Prov. 18:23)51The term "words" is missing from the verse. The clause should be read as if written: But the rich answers [with] impudent words. and and their food plenteous52Literally, and his food fat. (Hab. 1:16),53And his food fat should be read as if written: and his food a fat lamb. where the word lamb is missing. The meaning of he shall [not] go in is, he shall not go into a tent or a house where the dead body is located. The meaning of for his father, or his mother is, for his father and mother, whom he is obligated to respect while they live and after their death. The kohen gadol may certainly not defile himself over his brother or his son.54Our verse only mentions the kohen gadol's father and mother. However, if he cannot defile himself over the latter he certainly cannot defile himself for his brother or son.

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. After the dead, so said the transmitters of tradition.55San. 18a. Also see Rashi. What they said is correct. Some say that the reference is to the seven days of consecration. However, this cannot be so, for Scripture has already stated, and [the kohen] that is consecrated (v. 10).56In other words, our verse speaks of a kohen who is already consecrated. It is also possible that the meaning of our verse is that the kohen gadol shall not go out of the sanctuary except for the purpose of observing a precept.

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.

IN HER VIRGINITY. There are nouns in Hebrew that never come in the singular. Compare, ne'urim (youth), zekunim (old age), alumim (youth), and betulim (virginity). There are other words which never come in the plural, i.e., taf (children), shekhem (shoulder), zahav (gold), and barzel (iron).

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 ONE DIVORCED. Any woman widowed or divorced from a kohen or an Israelite. OR A PROFANED WOMAN, OR A HARLOT. The connective vav before the word zonah (harlot) is missing.57From before the word zonah (harlot). Our verse reads, va-chalalah zonah. This literally means or a profaned woman harlot. I.E. believes that the latter should be read as if written, va-chalalah ve-zonah (or a profaned woman or a harlot). Compare, The sun moon (shemesh yare'ach) stand still in their habitation58Translated literally. (Hab. 3:11).59Here too a vav is missing. The verse should be read as if written: The sun and moon (shemesh ve-yare'ach) stand still in their habitation. The reason Scripture reads but a virgin60The law mandating that a kohen gadol may only marry a virgin was stated in the previous verse. Why repeat it again in our verse? is that it wants to add of his own people, for a captive virgin61A foreign woman taken captive as a result of war. See Deut. 21:10-14. and a convert62Who is a virgin. are prohibited to 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. By taking a widow or a divorced woman in secret. These shall he not take (v. 14) means he shall not publicly take any of these women.63Since Scripture has already stated that he may not publicly take a divorced woman, a widow, a harlot, or a profaned woman. Hence our verse refers to secret intercourse with these women. After Scripture mentions the sanctity of the kohanim it begins to list the blemishes.64Which disqualify a kohen from offering sacrifices.