## Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra

###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:1:1)

**שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים (משלי כד, כו)**

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
**שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים, “he who gives the right answer is like giving a kiss on the lips.” (Proverbs 24,26)**


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:1:2)

**שלמה**המלך ע"ה למד בכאן (משלי כד) על מעלת החכם אשר דבריו ערבים על הבריות והכל חפצים לשמען מפני שהוא מדבר דברים נכוחים ומשיב בהם לכל שואל, ואין הכונה שראוי לנשקו בשפתים, כי מה יבא ללמד, ועוד שאם כן היה לו לומר שפתים יושק, אבל יאמר הכתוב שפתי השומעין ישק מי שהוא משיב דברים נכוחים, והכונה לומר כי אזני הבריות קשובות לדבריו ולבם נכון ושלם עמו לשמען כאלו היה הוא נושק שפתי השומעין, לפי שהוא רצוי אחיו ודבריו נשמעים ומקובלים להם, זהו על דרך הפשט.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:1:3)

**וע"ד**הקבלה שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים, קרא דברי החכמה דברי נכוחים כענין שכתוב (שם ח) כלם נכוחים למבין, ולשון ישק לפי שהנשיקה דבקות גופני בא המשל על דבקות שכלי כלשון (שיר השירים א׳:ב׳) ישקנו מנשיקות פיהו ומלת שפתים מלשון שפת הנהר שענינו גבול. ובאור הכתוב כי החכם המתבונן בעקרי החכמה העליונה שאין מחשבתו נפרדת ממנה לעולם והוא המשיב בה לכל שואל דברים נכוחים שפתים ישק, הלא הוא בסוף דבק בגבולי החכמה ההיא, ומעלת הדבקות הזה היא מיתת נשיקה שהוא הדבקות בשם הנכבד, והיא מעלת החשק שהזכיר דוד ע"ה (תהילים צ״א:י״ד) כי בי חשק ואפלטהו, והצדיק הזוכה אל המעלה הזאת אין מיתתן על ידי הכח המשחית כשאר בני העולם. והנה משה ואהרן ומרים זכו אליה, שהזכיר בהם הכתוב (במדבר ל״ג:א׳) על פי ה', והיא מיתת נשיקה, אבל במרים לא נאמר על פי ה' כי אינו דרך כבוד של מעלה, ואמר ר' אליעזר מרים נמי בנשיקה מתה דאתיא שם שם ממשה, ומפני מה לא נאמר על פי, שגנאי הדבר לומר וכו'. וכן באבות העולם שכתוב בהם בכל מכל כל. גם רבינו הקדוש ז"ל זכה אליה לפי שברור הדבר מתוך שנתעלה בהשגת החכמה לא היתה מיתתו על ידי המלאך המשחית, ודרשו רז"ל בשעת פטירתו של רבי זקף עשר אצבעותיו כלפי מעלה ואמר, רבונו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך שיגעתי בעשר אצבעותי ולא נהניתי אפילו באצבע קטנה שלי, יהי רצון מלפניך שיהא שלום במנוחתי, יצתה בת קול ואמרה יבא שלום ינוח על משכבו. ואמרו בירושלמי כד דמך ר' יהודה נשיאה הכריז ר' ינאי אין כהונה היום, וטעם הדבר מפני שהכהנים מוזהרין על טומאת המת לפי שהם משרתי עליון מקודשים לעבודתו, וכיון שמיתתו היתה שלא ע"י הכח המשחית אלא ע"י שכינה לא היתה שם טומאה. ולכך הכריז ר' ינאי אין כהונה היום, לפי שהכהנים נתעסקו בקבורתו ונסתלקה מעליהם תורת כהונה היום, אבל שאר בני העולם שמיתתן ע"י הכח המשחית שהוא סבת טומאת המת הנה הכהנים מוזהרין מזה שלא יטמאו, וזהו שכתוב.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:4
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:1:4)

**אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן ואמרת אליהם לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו.** אמר תחלה אמור אל הכהנים והחזיר עוד ואמרת אליהם, ושעורו, אמור אל הכהנים, הפרשה של מעלה, כי הם מורי התורה מזהירים את העם, ואמרת אליהם פרשה זו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
**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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:5
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:1:5)

**ורבותינו**ז"ל פירשו אמור ואמרת להזהיר הגדולים על הקטנים. והאזהרה הזו לומר שלא נסייע בטומאת הקטנים בידים, ובאו בזה אזהרות רבות בתורה כפי מה שדרשו רז"ל בדם ובשרצים ובטומאה, ומהם נלמוד לכל אסורין שבתורה שלא נסייע באחד מהם שיעברו עליו הקטנים, אבל אם יעשו בהן לדעת עצמן אין אנו מצווין עליהם להפרישם, ויאמר הכתוב לפי המדרש הזה אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן ותחזור ותאמר להם שלא יטמאו, ושיהיו כל בני אהרן נשמרים מזה ואפילו הקטנים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:6
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:1:6)

**ובמדרש**אמור ואמרת, אמירה ראשונה שיטמא למת מצוה, אמירה שניה שלא יטמא לאחרים. ומה שהוצרך הכתוב לומר הכהנים והיה הכתוב ראוי לומר אמור אל בני אהרן, אבל היה זה להוציא החללים מכלל הפרשה, כי אע"פ שהם בני אהרן אינם כהנים. ולכך הוצרך לבאר הכהנים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:7
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:1:7)

**בני אהרן.** דרשו רז"ל ולא בנות אהרן, שאין אזהרת טומאת מת בנשים, וטעם הדבר כתבתי בסדר צו לפי שהנשים גרמו מיתה לעולם. ומה שנסמכה פרשה זו של כהנים לפסוק אוב וידעוני, אמרו במדרש צפה הקב"ה שעתיד שאול למלוך על ישראל ולהרוג נוב עיר הכהנים ולדרוש אוב וידעוני, שנאמר (שמואל א כ״ח:ז׳) ויאמר שאול לעבדיו בקשו לי אשת בעלת אוב ואלכה אליה ואדרשה בה, זה שאמר הכתוב (ישעיהו ח׳:י״ט) וכי יאמרו אליכם דרשו אל האובות ואל הידעונים המצפצפים והמהגים הלוא עם אל אלהיו ידרוש בעד החיים אל המתים, אמר להם אם יאמרו לכם אומות העולם הניחו את האלהים בשמים ודרשו אל האובות ואל הידעונים, אמרו להם הלוא עם אל אלהיו ידרוש, האם ישראל יניח אלהיו וידרוש אל המתים, כשם שאמר אליהו לאחזיהו (מלכים ב א׳:ו׳) המבלי אין אלהים בישראל אתה שולח לדרוש בבעל זבוב אלהי עקרון, למה נדרוש אל המתים, לאלהות מתים (תהילים קט״ו:ה׳) פה להם ולא ידברו עינים להם ולא יראו, בעד החיים, שכתוב בו (ירמיהו י׳:י׳) הוא אלהים חיים ומלך עולם. אם תאמר ממי נדרוש, הרי הוא אומר (דברים י״ז:ט׳) ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם ודרשת. א"ר יהושע דסכנין בשם רבי יהושע בן לוי הראה לו הקב"ה למשה דור דור ודרשיו דור דור ופרנסיו דור דור ומלכיו, והראהו שאול המלך הוא ובניו נופלים בחרב, אמר לפניו רבש"ע מלך ראשון שיעמוד ידקר בחרב, אמר לו אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן עד כאן. ובסדר שופטים אבאר לך בעז"ה ענין בעלת אוב כי יש שם דעות וחלוק סברות.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:2:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:2:1)

**כי אם לשארו.** שארו זו אשתו, שהיה לו בה קרוב בשר. הקרוב, ולא ארוסה. אליו, ולא גרושה, כן דרשו רז"ל. ואע"פ שהכהן נקרא קדוש והכתוב מזהירו לגודל מעלתו שלא יטמא למת, הנה הכתוב מצוה עליו שיטמא לאשתו, ואם לא רצה כופין אותו על כרחו, וכמו שדרשו רז"ל מעשה ביוסף הכהן שמתה אשתו ערב הפסח ולא רצה להטמא וטמאוהו בעל כרחו. וטומאה זו היא שיעמוד בבית תחת אהל אחד, והוא הדין לאמו ולאביו וכל השאר, אבל אין להטמא ולהכנס בבית הקברות על אחד מהם כלל, וכן אמרו רז"ל מי ראה כהן בבית הקברות.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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?”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:2:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:2:2)

**לאמו ולאביו.** הקדים האם לאב, ובכהן גדול הקדים האב שאמר לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא. ואפשר לומר כי מה שהקדים כאן אמו לאביו, לפי שהזכיר שארו והתיר להטמא לכך הוצרך להקדים אמו כדי לסמוך אמו לשארו ושיזכיר הנקבות בפני עצמן, שאם היה אומר כי אם לשארו לאביו ולאמו יבא הלשון בלתי מסודר להכניס הזכר בין הנקבות. או הקדים אמו מפני שהיא ודאי שהיא אמו, וכדי לדרוש כי אין צריך לומר אמו אלא אפילו לאביו שאפשר להסתפק בו אם הוא אביו יטמא. אבל בלא יטמא הקדים אביו, כי אין צריך לומר אביו שהוא ספק אלא אפילו לאמו שהיא ודאי לא יטמא. ולאחותו הבתולה, פרט לאנוסה ומפותה, הקרובה, לרבות ארוסה, אליו, לרבות בוגרת, אשר לא היתה לאיש, לרבות מוכת עץ, וכבר נפסקה הלכה להטמא לאלו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:4:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:4:1)

**לא יטמא בעל בעמיו.** פירש רש"י ז"ל לא יטמא הבעל לאשתו פסולה שהוא מחולל בה מכהונתו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:4:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:4:2)

**והרמב"ן**ז"ל פירש בעל נכבד, כמו (שמואל ב ו׳:ב׳) בעלי יהודה, הנכבדים שביהודה. אמר לא יטמא נכבד בעמיו להקל את כבודו, כי למעלת הכהן בעבור שהוא ראוי להיות הגדול והנכבד בעמיו יזהירנו שלא יחלל מעלתו בטומאת המתים, ודרשו רז"ל בעמיו במת שהוא בתוך עמיו, יצא מת מצוה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:6:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:6:1)

**קדושים יהיו לאלהיהם.** שיהיו פרושים אפילו מן הדברים המותרים לישראל כטומאת המתים ונשואי זונה וחללה, כי הזונה היא שנבעלה לפסול לה כגון חייבי כריתות או נתין או ממזר, וחללה היא שנולדה מחמשה פסולין שבכהונה, כגון בת אלמנה מכהן גדול או בת גרושה מכהן הדיוט, שהרי כהן הדיוט לא הוזהר אלא בזונה וחללה אבל באלמנה מותר, וזהו שכתוב (יחזקאל מד) והאלמנה אשר תהיה אלמנה מכהן יקחו, כי יש מן הכהנים שמותרין באלמנה וזהו כהן הדיוט, וטעם הזקף קטן שבאלמנה מורה כן.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:9:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:9:1)

**באש תשרף.** אילו אמר תשרף באש היה נראה להיות משפט השרפה באש כלומר בהקף עצים ומדורת אש, ודין תורה במיתת שרפה אינו כן לשרוף תבנית הגוף באש ח"ו. וכן מצאתי שדקדקו רז"ל ממה שדרשו בפסחים פרק כיצד צולין, באש תשרף לרבות כל השרפות הבאות מחמת האש, ואמר רב מתנה פתילה של אבר. כי בפרים הנשרפים כתיב ושרף אותו על עצים באש, באש אין מידי אחרינא לא, הכא כתיב באש תשרף, לרבות כל השרפות הבאות מחמת האש. והוצרכו לומר כן כי הכונה במיתת שרפה דוגמת שרפת בני אהרן, שרפת נשמה וגוף קיים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:10:1)

**והכהן הגדול מאחיו.** ע"ד הפשט אחר שהחמיר על כהן הדיוט ואסר עליו טומאת מת זולתי במתים ידועים, ואסר עליו גם כן השנים והן זונה וחללה וגרושה זולתי אלמנה, הוסיף עתה והחמיר על הכהן הגדול שהוא מקודש ופנימי יותר מיוחד לעבודת ה', לא ימיש מתוך המקדש, שיהיה אסור לו להטמא בשום מת בעולם ואפילו על אביו ועל אמו, ושיהיה ג"כ אסור בכל הנשים זולתי הבתולה הכשרה, וטעם הדבר כדי שתהיה נמשכת לדעתו ולרצונו, והכהן הגדול יצטרך שיהיה גדור ביותר בענין המשגל ולכך נאסרה עליו אם היתה רגילה תחלה באיש אחר, פן תמשכנו היא לדעתה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:10:2)

**ע"ד**המדרש והכהן הגדול מאחיו, שיהא גדול מאחיו בחמשה דברים, בנוי בכח בעושר בחכמה בכבוד. ואם אין לו, אחיו הכהנים מעשירין אותו, שנאמר והכהן הגדול מאחיו, גדלהו משל אחיו. ומעשה בפנחס הסתת שמנוהו כהן גדול ויצאו אחיו הכהנים וראו אותו חוצב אבנים ומלאו המחצב לפניו דינרי זהב.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:10:3)

**וע"ד**הקבלה הכהן הגדול ידוע מי הוא דוגמתו, וכבר הזכרתי מזה בסדר צו, והיה הסגן מימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו דוגמת השרפים, וזהו שאמר המלאך ליהושע הכהן הגדול (זכריה ג) ונתתי לך מהלכים וגו', רמז לו מקומו ודוגמתו, ותרגם יונתן בין שרפיא האלין, ממה שכתוב (ישעיה ו) שרפים עומדים ממעל לו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:4
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:10:4)

**ואמרו**במסכת יומא פרק הממונה הסגן מימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו, ועוד תניא, שלשה מהלכים בדרך הרב באמצע גדול בימינו וקטן בשמאלו, וכן מצינו בשלשה מלאכים שבאו אצל אברהם מיכאל באמצע גבריאל מימינו רפאל משמאלו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:5
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:10:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:10:5)

**ואם**תזכה תבין כי לכך הזכיר בו הכתוב הלשון הזה הכהן הגדול כענין שכתוב (דברים יא) את כל מעשה ה' הגדול וגו', שהרי עבודתו של כהן גדול לשם הגדול, וזהו שאמרו רז"ל במסכת הוריות פרק כהן משיח (ויקרא כא) את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרום, לא יפרום כלל דברי ר' יהודה, ר' שמעון אומר אינו פורם מלמעלה אבל פורם הוא מלמטה, כלומר תחת בגדיו, לא בבגד העליון כמשפט הקריעה בכהן הדיוט ובשאר ישראל, ובא לרמוז שהפרימה אינה אלא למי שהוא למטה ממנו זהו כהן הדיוט, ולכך כהן גדול פורם מלמטה לפי שאין בדוגמתו ירידה אלא התעלות למעלה למעלה עד אין סוף, ולשון פרימה קריעה, כתרגומו יבזע.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:14:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:14:1)

**כי אם בתולה מעמיו.** למה הוצרך והלא כבר הזכיר והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח, אלא מכאן למדנו שאסור לכהן גדול לקדש בביאה, לפי שסוף ביאה קונה, וכשהוא קונה אותה בסוף ביאה הרי אינה בתולה, שבעולת עצמו היא, וכהן גדול מוזהר הוא בבעולת עצמו כמו בבעולת אחרים, וזהו שאמר כי אם בתולה מעמיו יקח, ולא בעולה, והוא לאו הבא מכלל עשה וכדאיתא בפרק קמא דקדושין.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:17:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Vayikra 21:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Vayikra/r/21:17:1)

**דבר אל אהרן לאמר איש מזרעך.** כתב הרמב"ן ז"ל, לא אמר בכאן דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כאשר יאמר בפרשיות כולן, והטעם כי שם יצוה בתורת הקרבנות, זאת תורת העולה זאת תורת המנחה והחטאת והאשם וכיוצא בזה, אבל אם אמר בכאן דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו ראוי שיאמר איש מכם לדורותיכם, ולא ירצה להזהיר אהרן עצמו בתורת המומין כי אהרן קדוש ה' כולו יפה, ומום לא יהיה בו, אבל יזהירנו על זרעו שיורם ויזהיר אותם לדורותם. ורז"ל בארו מומים רבים הפוסלין, והזכיר תחלה המום בחסרון האברים, עור או פסח, ואחרי כן בקטנות כגון החרום, ובגדול כגון השרוע, ואחרי כן בשברון העצמות אע"פ שכל אבריו עמו כיון שנשבר העצם פסול, ואח"כ פסל אפילו בכעור התואר כגון הגבן, ואשר בעיניו הגרעינין, ואחרי כן בבשר הגוף שצריך שיהיה נקי וחלק, ואחרי כן הוסיף בעל הרוח אשר ביציו נפוחים בו. ואמר אשר בו מום וחזר ואמר מום בו, כי בין שנולד המום עמו בין שנפל בו המום אחר שנולד הרי זה פסול לעבודה. וחזר והזכיר מומי הבהמה כי בהם נפסלו לקרבן, ופסל בבהמות אפילו מומי היצירה ואין צריך לומר מומי המקרה, מומי היצירה שרוע וקלוט שהם מומים מן הבטן, מומי המקרה הן עורת או שבור או חרוץ או יבלת או גרב או ילפת, ועורת הוא אשר בו עורון שפחתה עינו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.