## Ramban on Leviticus Chapter 21

###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:1:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:1:1)

**אֱמֹר וְאָמַרְתָּ** לְהַזְהִיר גְּדוֹלִים עַל הַקְּטַנִּים, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"א:א') מִדִּבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (יבמות קיד). וְהָאַזְהָרָה הַזֹּאת לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא נְסַיֵּעַ בְּטֻמְאַת הַקְּטַנִּים בְּיָדַיִם, וּבָאוּ בָּזֶה אַזְהָרוֹת רַבּוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה כְּפִי מִדְרַשׁ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (שם), בַּדָּם וּבַשְּׁרָצִים וְטֻמְאָה, וּמֵהֶם נִלְמוֹד לְכָל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא נְסַיֵּעַ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁיַּעַבְרוּ עָלָיו הַקְּטַנִּים. אֲבָל אִם יַעֲשׂוּ הֵם לְדַעַת עַצְמָן אֵין אָנוּ מְצֻוִּין עֲלֵיהֶם לְהַפְרִישָׁם. וְטַעַם הַכָּתוּב עַל פִּי מִדְרָשׁוֹ, אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים וְתַחְזֹר וְתֹאמַר אֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יִטַּמְּאוּ. וְרִבּוּי הָאַזְהָרוֹת שֶׁיְּצַוֶּה לְהַזְהִירָם, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כָּל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן נִשְׁמָרִים מִזֶּה, גַּם הַקְּטַנִּים. וְאָמַר ר"א (אבן עזרא על ויקרא כ"א:א') בְּדֶרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט, "אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים" - הַפָּרָשָׁה הַנִּזְכֶּרֶת לְמַעְלָה, כִּי הֵם מוֹרֵי הַתּוֹרָה וְהַמַּזְהִירִים אֶת הָעָם, "וְאָמַרְתָּ לָהֶם" - הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁהֵם לְבַדָּם חַיָּבִים לְשָׁמְרָם. וְאֵינוֹ נָכוֹן. וְעַל דַּעְתִּי בִּפְשַׁט הַכָּתוּב, טַעַם "אֱמֹר" כְּמוֹ דַּבֵּר, "אֲמָרַי הַאֲזִינָה ה'" (תהלים ה ב) - דְּבָרַי, וְכֵן "אֲמָרִים אֱמֶת" (משלי כב כא), וְכֵן "כִּי הִיא שָׁמְעָה אֵת כָּל אִמְרֵי ה'" (יהושע כד כז), וּכְתִיב "בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֵלָיו" (שמות ט א), כְּמוֹ וְאָמַרְתָּ, "וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל אֶלְעָזָר וְאֶל אִיתָמָר בָּנָיו הַנּוֹתָרִים קְחוּ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה" (ויקרא י':י"ב) כְּמוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר, וְכֵן בִּמְקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם", וְהוּא נֶאֱמַר בְּפָרָשִׁיּוֹת אֲשֶׁר יִרְצֶה לְהַזְהִיר לָהֶם מְאֹד, אוֹ לְחֹמֶר הָעִנְיָן אוֹ לִהְיוֹתָם מֻרְגָּלִים לַחֲטֹא בָּהֵנָּה, וְכֵן יֹאמַר "אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם", וְכָמוֹהוּ "כֹּה אָמַר ה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָלֹךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל צִדְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו כֹּה אָמַר ה'" וְגוֹ' (ירמיהו לד ב), שֶׁטַּעְמוֹ דַּבֵּר אֶל צִדְקִיָּהוּ, וְכֵן "וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הַתְּקֹעִית אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ וַתִּפֹּל עַל פָּנֶיהָ אַרְצָה וַתִּשְׁתָּחוּ וַתֹּאמֶר הוֹשִׁעָה הַמֶּלֶךְ" ( יד ד), כְּמוֹ וַתְּדַבֵּר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ וַתֹּאמֶר הוֹשִׁיעָה הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְהִנֵּה טַעַם "אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם" כְּטַעַם דַּבֵּר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם, דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם, וְעִנְיָנוֹ דַּבֵּר אֶל הָעָם בִּשְׁמִי וְתֹאמַר לָהֶם כָּכָה, כְּעִנְיַן "בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו" (שמות ז כו). וְרַבִּים יֹאמְרוּ כִּי טַעַם "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" כְּטַעַם קְרִיאָה, דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּתְאַסְּפוּ אֵלֶיךָ וְתֹאמַר אֲלֵיהֶם כָּכָה, וְכֵן "אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים", שֶׁיִּקָּבְצוּ וְיִשְׁמְעוּ. וְטַעַם "הַכֹּהֲנִים", כִּי בַּמִּצְוֹת אֲשֶׁר הֵם בְּעִנְיְנֵי הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת יֹאמַר "אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו" וְלֹא יַזְכִּירֵם בְּשֵׁם "הַכֹּהֲנִים", כִּי הָעִנְיָנִים הָהֵם בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת אוֹ בְּמַעֲלוֹת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֲבָל בְּכָאן יַזְהִיר שֶׁלֹּא יִטַּמְּאוּ בַּמֵּת לְעוֹלָם, אֲפִלּוּ בְּעֵת שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְהִיא מַעֲלָה לָהֶם בְּעַצְמָם, וּלְכָךְ הִזְכִּיר הַכָּתוּב "הַכֹּהֲנִים", לֵאמֹר כִּי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהֵם כֹּהֲנֵי ה' וּמְשָׁרְתֵי אֱלֹהֵינוּ יֹאמַר לָהֶם שֶׁיִּתְנַהֲגוּ כָּבוֹד וּגְדֻלָּה בְּעַצְמָם וְלֹא יִטַּמְּאוּ לְעוֹלָם. וְהִנֵּה הַחֲלָלִים מוּצָאִים מִן הַכְּלָל הַזֶּה. וְטַעַם "לֹא יִטַּמָּא", שֶׁתֹּאמַר לָהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יִטַּמָּא כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם לְנֶפֶשׁ בְּעַמָּיו, אוֹ יִמָּשֵׁךְ אֶל "בַּעַל בְּעַמָּיו" הַמֻּזְכָּר לְמַטָּה, וְשִׁעוּרוֹ, לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא יִטַּמָּא הַבַּעַל בְּעַמָּיו. וְטַעַם "בַּעַל בְּעַמָּיו" כְּמוֹ "מִבַּעֲלֵי יְהוּדָה" (שמואל א ו ב), "בַּעֲלֵי גוֹיִם" (ישעיהו טז ח), הַנִּכְבָּדִים בָּהֶם אוֹ הָאֲדוֹנִים, מִלְּשׁוֹן "בְּעָלָיו אֵין עִמּוֹ" (שמות כב יג), "בַּעַל הַבַּיִת" (שם פסוק ז), כִּי הַנִּכְבָּדִים יִקָּרְאוּ אֲדוֹנִים. יֹאמַר, לֹא יִטַּמָּא נִכְבָּד בְּעַמָּיו לְהָחֵל אֶת כְּבוֹדוֹ. יְפָרֵשׁ הַכָּתוּב כִּי לְמַעֲלַת הַכֹּהֵן, בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת הַגָּדוֹל וְהַנִּכְבָּד בְּעַמָּיו, יַזְהִירֶנּוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְחַלֵּל מַעֲלָתוֹ בְּטֻמְאַת הַמֵּתִים. וְיִתְכַּוֵּן הַכָּתוּב בָּזֶה שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתֵּנוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין הָאַזְהָרָה אֶלָּא בְּבֹאָם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ. וְכֵן בְּכָל הַפָּרָשָׁה יַזְהִיר כִּי הַכֹּל לְמַעֲלָתָם, "אֶת אָבִיהָ הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת" (ויקרא כ"א:ט'), "וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ" (ויקרא כ"א:ט"ו), וְכֵן תַּרְגּוּמוֹ שֶׁל אוּנְקְלוֹס "לָא יִסְתָּאַב רַבָּא בְּעַמֵּהּ לְאַחָלוּתֵיהּ". וּבְת"כ (אמור פרשה א טו) נִדְרָשׁ בְּבַעַל בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רַשִׁ"י:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
SAY [UNTO THE PRIESTS] … AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO THEM. “[The repetition of the verb *say … and thou shalt say* is] to warn the adults about the children” [that they observe this law]. This is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis.¹ Now the meaning of this “warning” is to state that we are not to assist with our hands in the defilement of children [but it does not intend to warn us that we are obliged to prevent them from becoming defiled]. There are many admonitions in the Torah of this nature according to the interpretation of our Rabbis,¹ such being the prohibitions against eating blood and swarming things, and against the defilement [of priests], and from them we learn that [it is applicable to] all prohibitions of the Torah, that we must not assist children in any case to transgress the law. But if they are doing it of their own accord, we², and such is the final decision of the law, Shulchan Aruch, *Hilchoth Shabbath*, 343). are not commanded to prevent them [from so doing since they have not yet reached the training period of minors for religious practices, but if they have reached that stage, everyone is commanded to prevent them from doing a prohibited act].³, Rama, and Mishnah Brurah, 7. The meaning of the verse according to its interpretation is then: “*say unto the priests … and thou shalt say* it over again to them, that they are not to defile themselves,” the purpose of the many warnings being [to teach] that all sons of Aaron are to be guarded from defilement, even the young ones. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that *say unto the priests* refers to the section mentioned above [i.e., *Seder Kedoshim*], since they [the priests] are the teachers of the Torah and it is they who admonish the people; *and thou shalt say unto them*, meaning those specific commandments which devolve upon them alone to observe, [as mentioned in this section]. But it is not correct [to interpret two such adjacent phrases as referring to two different sections].
In my opinion the plain sense of the verse is as follows: The meaning of *emor* (say) is like that of *dabeir* (speak): *Give ear to ‘amarai,’* O Eternal⁴ is like *d’varai* (my words). A similar case is *‘imrei’*(*words of*) *truth*.⁵ (words of truth) — Ecclesiastes 12:10. So also: *for it hath heard all ‘imrei’* (*the words of*) *the Eternal*.⁶ (the words of G-d) in Exodus 24:3. And the expression *Go in unto Pharaoh ‘v’dibarta’* (*and thou shalt speak*) *to him*⁷ is like *v’amarta* (and thou shalt say). *‘Vayedabeir Mosheh’* (*And Moses spoke*) *unto Aaron, and unto Elazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left: ‘Take the meal-offering*,’⁸ is like *vayomer Mosheh* (*and Moses said*). And so also you find in many places that both [*amor* and *dabeir* are used in one verse, such as:] *‘Dabeir* (*Speak*) *unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’* (*and say*) *unto them*,⁹ such usage [of the two verbs] being found in those sections where He wishes to warn them strongly [about a certain law] either because of the stringency of the matter, or on account of their habit to commit that sin. Thus *‘emor’* (*say*) *unto the priests … ‘v’amarta’* (*and thou shalt say*) *unto them* [is like *‘dabeir’* (*speak unto the priests*) *‘v’amarta’* (*and thou shalt say*), as will be explained further on]. Similarly, *Thus saith the Eternal, the G-d of Israel: Go ‘v’amarta’* (*and say*) *to Zedekiah king of Judah ‘v’amarta’* (*and say*) *unto him: Thus saith the Eternal* etc.¹⁰ means “Go *dabeir* (speak) to Zedekiah.” Similarly, *‘Vatomer ha’ishah ha’t'ko’ith’* (*And when the woman of Tekoa said*) *to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and prostrated herself, ‘vatomer’* (*and she said*)*: ‘Help, O king’*¹¹ is like: “*vatedabei’r ha’ishah* (*and the woman spoke*) to the king *vatomer* (*and she said*), ‘Help, O king.’” The meaning of *Say unto the priests … and thou shalt say unto them* is thus like “speak to the priests and say to them,” similar to [that which we find elsewhere], *‘Dabeir’* (*speak*) *unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’* (*and say*) *unto them*,⁹ the meaning thereof being: “speak to the people in My Name, and say thus to them,” like, *Go in unto Pharaoh, and say unto him:* [*‘Thus saith the Eternal: Let My people go’*].¹² and *dabeir*, and that the double use of each of these verbs or the use of the two together is to indicate the importance of the subject discussed. I have found a similar view in Yonah ibn Ganach’s Sefer Hashorashim, root *dabeir*. Now many scholars¹³ say that the meaning of *‘dabeir’ unto the children of Israel* is like that of the term *kriah* (calling), thus: “call unto the children of Israel that they assemble themselves before you, and you shall say to them the following,” and similarly *‘emor’ to the priests* means [“call them] to assemble themselves and to listen.”
[SAY UNTO] THE PRIESTS. The reason for [His mentioning the term] *the priests* [in this section is as follows]: In commandments relating to matters of the offerings He says, *Command Aaron and his sons*¹⁴ (*ibid.*, Verse 18). and does not refer to them by the name “the priests,”¹⁵ because those subjects concern the offerings or the various degrees of holiness of the Sanctuary. But here He warns the priests that they should never defile themselves for the dead, even at a time when they do not come into the Sanctuary, this being a mark of distinction to them personally; therefore Scripture mentioned here *the priests*, meaning to say that it is because they are the priests of the Eternal and the ministers of our G-d that He told them to conduct themselves in a manner reflecting honor and greatness, and that they should never become defiled. Thus the priests who are unfit for the priesthood [i.e., those who are born from a marriage forbidden to their father], are excluded from this principle [i.e., they are permitted to defile themselves for the dead].
The explanation of *‘lo yitama’* (*he shall not defile himself* — in the singular) is that you [i.e., Moses] are to tell the priests that none of them is to defile himself for the dead among his people. Or it may be that [the use of the singular in *lo yitama*] is connected with the expression of *‘ba’al b’amav’* (*a chief man among his people*) mentioned below in Scripture,¹⁶ and the meaning thereof [here] is: “the chief man among his people is not to defile himself [for the dead].” And the meaning of *ba’al b’amav*¹⁶ is like the expressions: *‘miba’alei Yehudah;’*¹⁷ *‘ba’aleigoyim,’*¹⁸ namely “the dignitaries” or “the lords” among them [i.e., Judah¹⁷ and the nations¹⁸], similar to the phrase: *‘ba’alav ein imo’*¹⁹ — “the master is not with it; “*‘ba’al habayith’* — “the master of the house;” as honored people are called “lords.” The verse here is thus stating: “the honored one among his people [i.e., the priest] is not to defile himself for the dead, [in which case] he would be treating his honor with irreverence.” Scripture is thus explaining that it is because of the distinction of the priest, seeing that he is fit to become the highest and most honored one among his people [i.e., the High Priest] that it warns him not to profane his distinction with the impurity of the dead. By means of this statement, Scripture intends to teach us that it should not occur to us to say that the warning [against the priests defiling themselves for the dead] is only when they come into the Tent of Meeting to perform the holy Service. Similarly in this whole section He states that all restrictions [on the priests mentioned here] are due to their distinction. Thus: *she profaneth her father;*²⁰ *and he shall not profane his seed*.²¹ Onkelos likewise translated [Verse 4]: “The chief among his people shall not defile himself, to be profaned thereby.” But in the Torath Kohanim²² 1:15. [*ba’al b’amav*]¹⁶ is interpreted [literally] to refer to “a husband” with reference to his wife, as Rashi has written.²³

footnotes:
¹ Yebamoth 114 a.
¹ Yebamoth 114 a.
² I.e., the court. But his father is obliged to rebuke him and prevent him from doing that which is forbidden (ibid.
³ Shulchan Aruch ibid.
⁴ Psalms 5:2.
⁵ Proverbs 22:21. This is equivalent to ‘divrei’ emeth
⁶ Joshua 24:27. Here too it is like ‘divrei’ Hashem
⁷ Exodus 9:1.
⁸ Above, 10:12.
⁹ Numbers 15:38.
¹⁰ Jeremiah 34:2.
¹¹ II Samuel 14:4.
⁹ Numbers 15:38.
¹² Exodus 7:26. — In brief, Ramban up to this point has explained that there is no difference between emor
¹³ I have not identified these scholars.
¹⁴ Above, 6:2. Or: Speak unto Aaron and his sons
¹⁵ “The priests.” In the Tur quoting Ramban: “and He does not refer to them by the term of priesthood.”
¹⁶ Verse 4.
¹⁶ Verse 4.
¹⁷ II Samuel 6:2.
¹⁸ Isaiah 16:8.
¹⁷ II Samuel 6:2.
¹⁸ Isaiah 16:8.
¹⁹ Exodus 22:13.
²⁰ Verse 9.
²¹ Verse 15.
²² Torath Kohanim, Emor
¹⁶ Verse 4.
²³ Thus: “A husband [a priest] shall not defile himself for his wife’s corpse while it is among his people, meaning where there are other persons who can attend to her burial, this applying only to a wife who disqualified him from serving as a priest, because she was forbidden to him in marriage.” But otherwise the priest is to defile himself for his wife, even if there are other people to attend to her burial.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:6:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:6:1)

**קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם** הַקְּדֻשָּׁה הִיא הַפְּרִישׁוּת, כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי בְּסֵדֶר שֶׁל מַעְלָה (רמב"ן על ויקרא י"ט:ב'), יֹאמַר שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בַּמֻּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִהְיוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּרוּשִׁים, יִבָּדְלוּ מִטֻּמְאַת הַמֵּתִים וְנִשּׂוּאֵי הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן הֲגוּנוֹת לָהֶם בְּטַהֲרָה וּבִנְקִיּוּת:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THEY SHALL BE HOLY UNTO THEIR G-D. Holiness signifies separateness, as I have explained in the section above.²⁴. Scripture is thus stating that even in those things which are permissible to Israelites, the priests should exercise self-control, avoiding the impurity of the dead, and marrying of women who are unfit for them in purity and cleanliness.

footnotes:
²⁴ In the beginning of Seder Kedoshim


###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:8:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:8:1)

וְטַעַם **כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי ה' מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם** עִם הַכֹּהֲנִים יְדַבֵּר כַּאֲשֶׁר הֵחֵל "אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים", אוֹ "אֲנִי ה' מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם" כֻּלְּכֶם, הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם. וְהַטַּעַם כִּי מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא מַקְרִיב לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֶיךָ קָדוֹשׁ יִהְיֶה לָךְ, כִּי עַל יָדוֹ אֲנִי מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת כֻּלְּכֶם וּמַשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָתִי בְּמִקְדַּשְׁכֶם. וְיִתָּכֵן עַל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת, שֶׁיַּחְזֹר לְרֹאשׁ הַפָּסוּק, וּכְבָר נִתְפָּרֵשׁ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
FOR I THE ETERNAL, WHO SANCTIFY YOU, AM HOLY. The sense [of the plural form of *you*] is that it is addressed to the priests, just as He began, *Say unto the priests*.²⁵ Or it may be that the expression *I the Eternal, Who sanctify you* means “Who sanctifies all of you — priests and [the rest of the] people,” and the meaning thereof is as follows: “Since the priest offers ‘the bread’ of your G-d, *he shall be holy unto thee*, for through him I sanctify all of you and make My *Shechinah* (Divine Glory) dwell in your Sanctuary.” It is possible by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala] that the above phrase refers back to the beginning of [this] verse,²⁶. The sense of the whole verse is thus: “Sanctify him, and you likewise will become holy, because it is I the Eternal Who sanctifies you, and when he [the priest] performs the rites of the offerings to be acceptable upon Mine altar, he thereby sanctifies you and brings you nearer unto Me” (Ricanti). a matter which has already been explained.²⁷

footnotes:
²⁵ Verse 1.
²⁶ The beginning of the verse reads: Thou shalt sanctify him
²⁷ Above, 1:9 (towards the end).


###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:10:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:10:1)

**אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וְגוֹ' וְעַל כָּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת** נִמְשָׁךְ לְפָנָיו עִם "נַפְשׁוֹת מֵת", יֹאמַר שֶׁלֹּא יִפְרַע וְלֹא יִפְרֹם עַל כָּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת וְלֹא יָבֹא עָלָיו:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
HE SHALL NOT LET THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD GO LOOSE etc. 11. NEITHER SHALL HE GO IN TO ANY DEAD BODY. The phrase [dealing with his hair, in Verse 10], is connected with *any dead body* in the following verse, thus stating that the High Priest is not to let his hair go loose nor rend his garments *for any dead body*, neither is he to enter a tent where there is a corpse.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:12:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:12:1)

**וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא** אֵינוֹ הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמִּטָּה (ת"כ כאן וסנהרין יט). וְעוֹד מִכָּאן לָמְדוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (הוריות יב) שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן, וְכֵן מַשְׁמָעוֹ, אַף אִם מֵתוּ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָצֵאת מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֶלָּא עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה, **וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֵת מִקְדַּשׁ אֱלֹהָיו**, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל בְּכָךְ אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה אִם עָבַד כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹנֵן, שֶׁהִתִּיר לוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַעֲבֹד, הָא הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁעָבַד אוֹנֵן - חִלֵּל, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"א:י"ב). וּשְׁנֵי הַמִּדְרָשִׁים הַלָּלוּ חֲלוּקִים הֵם זֶה עִם זֶה, שֶׁאִם הַכָּתוּב הִתִּיר בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לָצֵאת מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּתוֹ כְּהֶדְיוֹט, אֲבָל יָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲבֹד כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹנֵן, אִם כֵּן אֵין בְּכָאן אַזְהָרָה כְּלָל שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא אַחַר הַמִּטָּה. וְכֵן "לֹא יְחַלֵּל אֵת מִקְדַּשׁ אֱלֹהָיו" כְּפִי הַלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין עֲבוֹדָתוֹ מְחֻלֶּלֶת, וּלְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַהֶדְיוֹט שֶׁעָבַד אוֹנֵן - חִלֵּל, וְאִם כֵּן הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה שְׁלִילוּת, לֹא אַזְהָרָה. וּבַעֲלֵי הַהֲלָכוֹת מְנָאוּהוּ בַּלָּאוִין בַּהֲלָכוֹת פְּסוּקוֹת וּבַהֲלָכוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת. וְעוֹד שֶׁכְּבָר כָּתַבְתִּי (רמב"ן על ויקרא י':ו') הַבָּרַיְתָא שֶׁהִיא שְׁנוּיָה בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (שמיני מילואים מב מג), וּמְפֹרָשׁ בָּהּ שֶׁהוּא לָאו גָּמוּר, כִּדְקָתָנֵי: "וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵצְאוּ" (ויקרא ח':ל"ג), יָכוֹל בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל", אֵימָתַי אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא וְאֵין מְחַלֵּל, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה. וְקָתָנֵי: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו שֶׁנִּמְשְׁחוּ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁאִם יָצְאוּ בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה חַיָּבִין מִיתָה, מִנַּיִן לְכָל הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁבְּכָל הַדּוֹרוֹת וְכוּ'. וַהֲרֵי הוּא לָאו גָּמוּר, אַזְהָרָה שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחַ עֲבוֹדָה וְיֵצֵא. לְפִיכָךְ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּם כָּל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁעִקַּר הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה יַזְהִיר בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה עַל כָּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת, וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁיַּעֲזֹב עֲבוֹדָתוֹ לִכְבוֹד הַמֵּת, אֲבָל יִהְיֶה כְּבוֹד הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ גָּדוֹל עָלָיו מִכְּבוֹד הַמֵּת וְאַהֲבָתוֹ אוֹתוֹ, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁאִם מַנִּיחַ עֲבוֹדָתוֹ לְלֹא דָּבָר וְיוֹצֵא שֶׁעוֹבֵר בַּלָּאו הַזֶּה. אֲבָל הִזְהִירוֹ הַכָּתוּב בְּעִנְיַן הַמֵּת לְהַתִּיר לוֹ הָעֲבוֹדָה כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹנֵן, וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ, אִם יַנִּיחֶנָּה מֵרְצוֹן עַצְמוֹ יִהְיֶה חִלּוּל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. וְזֶה הוּא פֵּרוּשׁ הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה. וּכְבָר כְּתַבְתִּיו בְּסֵדֶר וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי. וְעוֹד מָצִינוּ שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּפֶרֶק שֵׁנִי שֶׁל מַסֶּכֶת זְבָחִים (זבחים ט"ז) וְאָמְרוּ, אוֹנֵן מְנָא לַן דְּמַחֵל עֲבוֹדָה, דִּכְתִיב "וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל", הָא אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא חִלֵּל. וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי אָמַר מֵהָכָא, "הֵן הַיּוֹם הִקְרִיבוּ אֶת חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת עֹלָתָם" (ויקרא י':י"ט), אֲנִי הִקְרַבְתִּי, מִכְּלָל דְּאִי אִינְהוּ אַקְרְבוּ שַׁפִּיר וְכוּ'. וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר "וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא", אֲמַר לָךְ מִי כְּתִיב הָא אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא חִלֵּל. וְהָעִנְיָן לוֹמַר כִּי כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב אַזְהָרָה בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל הָעֲבוֹדָה בְּהַנִּיחוֹ אוֹתָהּ, אֵין לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט בַּמַּשְׁמָע הַזֶּה שֶׁיְּחַלֵּל כְּשֶׁיַּעֲבֹד. וּמִכָּאן רְאָיָה עוֹד שֶׁאֵינֶנּוּ רְשׁוּת לְהַתִּיר הָעֲבוֹדָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּלְהוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁאֵין עֲבוֹדָתוֹ מְחֻלֶּלֶת בְּכָךְ, כִּי הָיָה יוֹצֵא מִזֶּה בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁכֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מְחַלֵּל אוֹתָהּ. וְהִנֵּה יֵרָאֶה מִזֶּה בִּפְשׁוּטוֹ כִּי עַל דַּעַת הַפֵּרוּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּא שְׁלִילוּת בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כִּלְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י. אֲבָל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבָּרַיְתָא מְפֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהוּא אַזְהָרָה, נֹאמַר שֶׁהֵם יִסְבְּרוּ כִּי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין הָאַזְהָרָה אֶלָּא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּמִכְּלַל שֶׁהַהֶדְיוֹט יוֹצֵא וּמַנִּיחַ הָעֲבוֹדָה מִזֶּה נִלְמֹד שֶׁהִיא מְחֻלֶּלֶת, וְאִלּוּ הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁרָה לֹא יַתִּיר לוֹ לְהַנִּיחָהּ. וְכָךְ שְׁנוּיָה בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה הַזֹּאת (פרשה ב ו), וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם עָבַד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֵת מִקְדַּשׁ אֱלֹהָיו", הָא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁעָבַד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְהַסֻּגְיָא שֶׁשְּׁנוּיָה בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (יט), "וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא", שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא אַחַר הַמִּטָּה עִמָּהֶם אֶלָּא הֵם נִכְסִין וְהוּא נִגְלֶה הֵם נִגְלִין וְהוּא נִכְסֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ כְּלָל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא", וּפֵרְשׁוּ בְּטַעְמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר, "וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ" - מִקְּדֻשָּׁתוֹ לֹא יֵצֵא, וְכֵוָן דְּאִית לֵהּ הֶכֵּירָא לָא אָתֵי לְמִנְגַּע. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַגַּב מְרָרֵהּ דִּלְמָא מִקְּרֵי וְנָגַע - כָּל זֶה אַסְמַכְתָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם, שֶׁהֵם הִנְהִיגוּ סִלְסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים וְאָדָם בָּהוּל עַל מֵתוֹ שֶׁמָּא יִגַּע בָּהֶן, כְּעִנְיַן "וַיִּפֹּל יוֹסֵף עַל פְּנֵי אָבִיו" (בראשית נ א), אֲבָל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט עַל קְרוֹבָיו הוּא מִטַּמֵּא וְעַל אֲחֵרִים אֵינוֹ בָּהוּל שֶׁיִּטַּמָּא לָהֶן. וְכָל זֶה בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל מַעֲלָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם, וְסָמְכוּ אוֹתָהּ לַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה כְּדֶרֶךְ הָאַסְמַכְתּוֹת בַּתַּלְמוּד. וְכָךְ מָצָאתִי בַּתּוֹסֶפְתָּא בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין (פ"ד ה"א), אָמְרוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵין "מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא" אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲבוֹדָה בִּלְבַד. וְעוֹד שָׁם בַּיְּרוּשַׁלְמִי (פ"ב ה"א) רְאָיוֹת אֵין כָּאן מְקוֹם הַזְכָּרָתָם:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
NEITHER SHALL HE GO OUT OF THE SANCTUARY. “He does not follow the bier [of a near relative]. Our Rabbis have further derived from this verse [the principle] that the High Priest may perform [the Divine Service] when he is an *onen* (a mourner),²⁸, Note 85. the meaning of the verse thus being as follows: Even if his father or his mother died, he need not leave the Sanctuary but he may perform the Service. *Nor shall he profane the Sanctuary of his G-d*, means that [the High Priest] does not profane thereby the Service by ministering when he is an *onen*,²⁸, Note 85. since Scripture permitted him to minister. From this you deduce that a common priest who officiated when he is an *onen*, does profane the Service.” This is Rashi’s language.
But these two interpretations [that Rashi mentioned, namely, that the High Priest is not to follow the bier of a near relative, and that he may officiate when he is an *onen*], are really opposing opinions, for since the verse *permitted* the High Priest not to leave the Sanctuary on account of his mourning, as a common priest must do, but instead he may [continue to] officiate when he is an *onen*,²⁸, Note 85. then there is *no admonition here* against his following the bier of his near relative.²⁹. In interpreting the phrase, *neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary* as a prohibition, meaning that *he is not permitted* to leave the Sanctuary to follow the bier, how could Rashi continue on the basis of *the same phrase* to state that *he need not* leave the Sanctuary, but he may perform the Service, since these two interpretations of the same phrase are contradictory to each other! This is the meaning of Ramban’s succinct objection: “Since the verse *permitted* the High Priest … then there is *no admonition* …” Mizrachi, in defense of Rashi, answers that Rashi was not referring only to the first phrase [as if both the permission and the admonition are derived from the same phrase], but rather to both phrases of the verse, the first one [*neither shall he go out* …] establishing the prohibition, and the second one [*nor profane* …] constituting the negation. Ramban will also further on defend Rashi’s position from another standpoint. Similarly, *nor shall he profane the Sanctuary of his G-d* is, according to this interpretation [of Rashi], nothing but a statement that the Service of the High Priest does not become profaned [although performed when he is an *onen*], from which you are to deduce that a common priest who officiates when he is an *onen*, does defile the Service. But if so, this verse is merely a negation, not a prohibition, and yet the “masters of the *Halachoth*”³⁰.” From the ensuing phrase [“counted it among the negative commandments in the Hilchoth Gedoloth”], it is obvious that Ramban is referring to one particular work. But if so, why does he speak of “the masters” [in the plural] of that work? It may be that this is because it has long been in doubt whether the authorship of that book is to be ascribed to Rav Yehudai Gaon or to Rabbi Shimon Kairo, or to both. Hence Ramban writes here “the masters of the *Halachoth*.” See, however, in Exodus 21:7, where Ramban writes of “the master of the Hilchoth Gedoloth” — in the singular. See Vol. II, p. 350, Note 70. counted it among the negative commandments in the Hilchoth Gedoloth! Moreover, I have already quoted the Beraitha³¹, Note 209. which is taught in the Torath Kohanim³² 42. Ramban quoted it above, 10:6. where it is clearly explained that this verse is a proper prohibition [and not a mere negation], as it is taught: “*And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting*.³³ I might think that [upon becoming apprised of the death of a near relative, an ordinary priest may not leave the Sanctuary] whether he is ministering or not; Scripture therefore says, *Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor shall he profane*. When is he not permitted to go out [so that only by his staying there] he does not profane it? I must say that this applies only when he is ministering.” And it further states there [in the Torath Kohanim]:³⁴ 43. “I would only know that this tells me that Aaron and his sons, who were anointed with the oil of anointment, are liable to death [by the hand of Heaven] if they leave the Sanctuary while they are ministering. How do I know that this [prohibition] applies also to all priests of all times? etc.” Thus it is clear that the verse before us constitutes an actual negative commandment, prohibiting the priest from leaving the Service and going out [of the Sanctuary].
Therefore I say in order to maintain the words of all the Sages [i.e., of Rashi and of the author of the Hilchoth Gedoloth, as will be explained], that the main purpose of this verse is to admonish the High Priest not to leave the Sanctuary while he is ministering, on [becoming apprised of] the death of any near relative, and he is not to profane the Sanctuary by leaving its Service for the honor of the dead. Instead, the honor of the Sanctuary and its Service is to be greater to him than his honor of and love for the dead, and it follows all the more so that if he left his ministration for no reason at all, and went out of the Sanctuary, that he has violated this negative commandment. However, Scripture warned him with [especial] reference to the dead, in order [incidentally] to permit the High Priest to perform the Service when he is an *onen* (a mourner),²⁸, Note 85. and since it is permissible for him to perform it, therefore if he leaves it voluntarily it constitutes a profanation of the Sanctuary. This is the meaning of this verse, and I have already written it in the section of *Vay’hi Bayom Ha’shemini*.³⁵
We find furthermore that our Rabbis have differed in the second chapter of Tractate Zebachim [on this matter, namely whether the verse before us is a prohibition, or a mere negation]. Thus they have said:³⁶ “How do we know that an *onen* [who performs] profanes the Service? Because it is written, *Neither shall he* [i.e., the High Priest] *go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane;* but any other priest who does not go out [of the Sanctuary], does profane it [i.e., if he officiates when he is an *onen*]. And Rabbi Ilai³⁷, Rabbi Eleazar. said, We derive it from this verse: *Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering*³⁸ perform the rites of the offerings? It was *I*, the High Priest, who ministered, and the High Priest may indeed minister whilst an *onen*. And as for the reason why that offering was burnt etc.” (see above, 10:19). — it is ‘I’ [Aaron — the High Priest] who offered! From this you may learn that if they [Aaron’s sons — Elazar and Ithamar] had performed the rites of the offerings, they would have acted correctly [in burning them, since common priests who minister when in a state of *aninuth* (mourning) invalidate the Service] etc. And Rabbi Ilai, why does he not derive this principle from the verse, *Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane?* He will answer you: Is it after all written, ‘But any other priest who does not go out of the Sanctuary does profane it’?” The meaning of [Rabbi Ilai’s answer] is that since Scripture states an admonition with reference to the High Priest, that he is not to leave the Sanctuary and that he should not profane the Service by leaving it [on becoming apprised of the death of a near relative], there is no implication here that a common priest *does* profane the Service if he officiates when he is an *onen* [and hence Rabbi Ilai resorted to another verse — *Behold, this day* etc.³⁸ perform the rites of the offerings? It was *I*, the High Priest, who ministered, and the High Priest may indeed minister whilst an *onen*. And as for the reason why that offering was burnt etc.” (see above, 10:19). — from which he learned that a common priest who is an *onen* profanes the Service]. From this text, then, there is another proof that it is not [merely] a permission [that the Torah extended] to the High Priest, permitting him to perform the Service, and informing him that his ministration will not become profaned [as Rashi had stated it], for if that were the case, it *would* surely have followed that a common priest does profane it by ministering [when he is an *onen*]. Thus it appears from the interpretation of the text,³⁹ that according to the opinion of the first answer [stated above, that we know that an *onen* profanes the Service from the verse about the High Priest, *Neither shall he go out* etc., which teaches by implication: “but any other priest who does not go out, does profane it”], it constitutes a mere negation as far as the High Priest is concerned,⁴⁰ against a *common* priest ministering whilst in mourning from the verse about the High Priest [as explained in the text], this perforce shows that this Sage holds that with reference to the High Priest, the verse is a mere negation, and the reasoning is as follows: “Since Scripture states that the High Priest *need not* leave his ministration, we understand by implication that the common priest *must* leave it.” Thus with reference to the High Priest the verse is a mere negation, but, by implication, it is an admonition to the common priest. Rashi’s interpretation quoted at the beginning of this verse, that the verse is a negation, is thus justified and is in accord with the opinion of this Beraitha. — Thus far Ramban argued on the basis of the *interpretation* of the text of the Beraitha, that it substantiates *Rashi’s* position. Ramban will now turn his attention to the fact that a cursory reading of the Beraitha does convey the thought that the verse is *an admonition* to the High Priest, which is the opinion of the Hilchoth Gedoloth [as mentioned above], and he will explain the Beraitha accordingly. Thus Ramban has “validated the words of *all* the Sages” — Rashi and Hilchoth Gedoloth as he promised above in the text. [to teach us] that he does not profane his Service [and invalidate it if he officiates whilst he is an *onen*], as is the language of Rashi. However, because in the Beraitha [quoted above] it is clearly stated that it is an admonition [an opinion held by the Hilchoth Gedoloth], we shall say that they⁴¹” (see Note 30 above). hold that since the admonition pertains only to the High Priest, and by implication we reason that a common priest does go out [of the Sanctuary] and leave the ministration, from this we learn that [if the common priest would continue ministering], the Service would be profaned, for if it would have been valid, [the Torah] would not have permitted him to leave it. And so it is taught in the Torath Kohanim in this section:⁴² 2:6. “How do we know that if [the High Priest] officiates [whilst he is an *onen*] that his Service is valid? Because Scripture says, *Nor shall he profane*. But if a common priest officiates whilst in mourning, his Service *is* invalid.”
Now as to the text written in Tractate Sanhedrin:⁴³ the High Priest from following the bier of his near relative, so that he should not become defiled thereby and thus “go out from his sanctity” (see Note 44 further). From this text it would then appear that the verse is *not* an admonition against his going out of the Sanctuary because of the honor of the *Service*, but because of the honor of his own sanctity, which would thus be a contradiction to what was said above. This, in short, is the intention of Ramban in quoting this text, and further on he will remove the difficulty. “*Neither shall he go out ‘min hamikdash’* (*of the Sanctuary*) — this means that he may not follow after the bier with the bearers, but [he may go forth with them as long as they do not see one another, thus:] when they [who form the funeral cortege] are hidden [from his view, as when entering an alley], he [the High Priest] appears; when they emerge, he disappears [in the alley]. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yehudah says: He may not go forth from the Sanctuary at all, for it is said, *Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary*.” And [in the Gemara there] the Rabbis explained that the reason of Rabbi Meir is that he interprets the verse as follows: “*‘u’min hamikdash* — out of his sanctity — he shall not go forth,’⁴⁴ to follow the bier, but must guard himself against touching it or its bearers, and hence he must never be in sight of the funeral cortege. and as long as he has some distinction [to remind him not to defile himself, namely, the fact that he is not in sight of the funeral cortege], he will not come to touch the dead. And Rabbi Yehudah [is of the opinion that] on account of his grief, he might by chance touch it.” [Now this whole text would seem to indicate that the verse before us is an admonition whose purpose is to guard the sanctity of the High Priest, and not, as we have said above, that its purpose is to guard the sanctity of the Service!] However, all this is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic ordinance. It is they [i.e., the Rabbis] who [decided to] guard the dignity of the High Priest, that he should not go out after the bier, because he is not permitted to defile himself for near relatives; and since people are upset about their dead, [they feared] lest he will touch it, similar to that which is written, *And Joseph fell upon his father’s face*.⁴⁵ But a common priest must defile himself for his near relatives, and he is not so upset about other people that there is a fear lest he defile himself; [therefore there was no need for the Rabbis to institute a restriction against a common priest following the funeral cortege of people other than his near relatives]. Thus it is clear that all this is a mark of distinction [for the High Priest] by law of the Rabbis, and they gave it support by reference to this verse, as is the manner of *asmachtoth*⁴⁶ in the Talmud. So also have I found in the Tosephta of Sanhedrin:⁴⁷, Note 124. “The Sages said to Rabbi Yehudah: The verse *Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary*, only refers to his leaving the Sanctuary at the time of ministration.” There are also proofs in the Talmud Yerushalmi there,⁴⁸, Note 44. [to the correctness of this explanation], but this is not the place to mention them.⁴⁹

footnotes:
²⁸ See above, Seder Shemini
²⁸ See above, Seder Shemini
²⁸ See above, Seder Shemini
²⁹ To understand Ramban’s criticism of Rashi’s interpretation, it is necessary to recall the difference between a statement which is a mere negation and one which is a prohibition. “An admonition is in the nature of a charge; it is in fact the verb in its command-form” (“The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 391). But a statement of negation merely excludes a particular case from a certain subject (see further, Ramban Vol. II, p. 350, Note 71). Now the verse before us reads, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane the Sanctuary of his G-d
³⁰ “Masters of the Halachoth
³¹ For the meaning of this term, see in Exodus, Seder Bo
³² Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im
³³ Above, 8:33.
³⁴ Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im
²⁸ See above, Seder Shemini
³⁵ Above 10:6.
³⁶ Zebachim 16 a.
³⁷ Ibid.
³⁸ Above, 10:19. The verse refers to the day when Aaron’s two sons — Nadab and Abihu — died, and Aaron the High Priest performed the Service on that day. When Moses was angry with Elazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s two remaining sons, for not eating a certain offering as required, but burning it instead, Aaron intervened by replying: “Did they
³⁸ Above, 10:19. The verse refers to the day when Aaron’s two sons — Nadab and Abihu — died, and Aaron the High Priest performed the Service on that day. When Moses was angry with Elazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s two remaining sons, for not eating a certain offering as required, but burning it instead, Aaron intervened by replying: “Did they
³⁹ The significance of this phrase of Ramban (“the interpretation of the text”), becomes clearer later on in the text, as another interpretation is offered by the author. At this point here Ramban is saying that the plain interpretation of the Beraitha shows that the First Sage agrees with Rashi’s view that the verse before us is a mere negation, and not an admonition to the High Priest (see following note).
⁴⁰ Ramban’s meaning is as follows: Since the First Sage of this Beraitha derives the admonition
⁴¹ “They.” The reference may be to “the masters of the Halachoth
⁴² Torath Kohanim, Emor
⁴³ Sanhedrin 18 a. — Ramban now quotes a text showing that the verse ‘Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary,’ prohibits
⁴⁴ That is to say, he is to guard himself against being defiled by the dead. This implies that he is
⁴⁵ Genesis 50:1.
⁴⁶ See in Exodus, p. 314, Note 449.
⁴⁷ Tosephta, Sanhedrin 2:1. On “Tosephta” see above in Seder Tazria
⁴⁸ Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin II, 1. On “Yerushalmi,” see above in Seder Metzora
⁴⁹ In his comments to Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvoth, Principle Five, Ramban does quote this Yerushalmi at length.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:13:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:13:1)

**וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח** פֵּרוּשׁ אֲבָל לֹא בְּעוּלָה, וְהוּא לָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן הִזְהִיר בְּלָאו עַל הָאַלְמָנָה וְהַפְּסוּלוֹת, וְאָמַר "כִּי אִם בְּתוּלָה מֵעַמָּיו יִקַּח אִשָּׁה" לְצַוּוֹת עָלָיו שֶׁיִּקָּחֶנָּה. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (הוריות יא), מֻזְהָר עַל הָאַלְמָנָה וּמְצֻוֶּה עַל הַבְּתוּלָה. וְכָךְ שָׁנוּ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרק ב ו), "כִּי אִם בְּתוּלָה", מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל הַבְּתוּלָה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND HE SHALL TAKE A WIFE IN HER VIRGINITY. This means that he is not to wed a woman who is not a virgin, this being a negative commandment which is derived from a positive commandment [which carries the force of a positive commandment].⁵⁰ to marry a woman who is not a virgin. And the reason why it is stated in a positive form, is to make the negative aspect of it carry the force of a positive commandment, because it is an accepted principle that a negative commandment which is derived from a positive commandment carries only the force of a positive commandment. Therefore if he marries a woman who is not a virgin, he does not incur whipping, since the prohibition thereof is derived from a positive commandment, and only carries the force of a positive commandment, for the violation of which the court is not empowered to mete out punishment. This interpretation is made necessary by the following Verse 14, where it is stated again, *but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife*. As Ramban will explain further on, it is this expression in Verse 14 which established the *positive* aspect thereof, while Verse 13 before us expresses the prohibitive part thereof. Thus the two verses are not redundant, but instead complement each other. Afterwards [in the following verse] He forbids the High Priest by means of a negative commandment to marry a widow or other disqualified woman, and then says, *but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife*,⁵¹ thus commanding him [in a positive manner] to take a virgin as a wife. It is this which our Rabbis have said:⁵² “He is forbidden [to marry] a widow, and he is commanded to marry a virgin.” And so the Rabbis taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁵³ 2:6. “*But a virgin*. This teaches that he is commanded to marry a virgin.”

footnotes:
⁵⁰ The intention of Ramban’s comment is that this verse is primarily intended to teach that the High Priest is not
⁵¹ Verse 14. See preceding note.
⁵² Horayoth 11 b.
⁵³ Torath Kohanim, Emor


###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:15:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:15:1)

**וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו** הָא אִם נָשָׂא אַחַת מִן הַפְּסוּלוֹת - זַרְעוֹ מִמֶּנָּה חָלָל מִדִּין קְדֻשַּׁת כְּהֻנָּה, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"א:ט"ו). פֵּרְשׁוֹ הָרַב לִשְׁלִילוּת בִּלְבַד, אֶת אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח שֶׁלֹּא יִתְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ. וְעַל דַּעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (קידושין עח) הוּא לָאו שֵׁנִי, וְכָךְ אָמְרוּ, קִדֵּשׁ וּבָעַל - לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת מִשּׁוּם "לֹא יִקָּח" וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם "לֹא יְחַלֵּל". וְאָמְרוּ, בָּעַל וְלֹא קִדֵּשׁ - לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם "לֹא יְחַלֵּל". וְהִנֵּה הֵם שְׁנֵי לָאוִין, וְנִדְרָשׁ לָהֶם גַּם כֵּן כְּטַעַם קִדֵּשׁ וְלֹא בָּעַל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, מָה טַעַם לֹא יִקַּח, מִשּׁוּם לֹא יְחַלֵּל. אִם כֵּן פֵּרוּשׁוֹ - אֶת אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח כִּי אֲנִי מַזְהִירוֹ בְּלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ. וּמֵאֵלֵינוּ נִלְמֹד שֶׁהַזֶּרַע מִן הַפְּסוּלוֹת הוּא מְחֻלָּל:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND HE SHALL NOT PROFANE HIS SEED AMONG HIS PEOPLE. “Thus if he married one of these women who are disqualified for him, his offspring from her becomes profaned [i.e., disqualified] from the law of the sanctity of the priesthood.” This is Rashi’s language.
The Rabbi [Rashi] thus explained the verse [before us] as a mere negation, meaning: “*these shall he not take* in order that he profane not his offspring.” But in the opinion of our Rabbis, this constitutes a second negative commandment. Thus they have said:⁵⁴ “If [a High Priest or a common priest] betrothed and had intercourse with one of the women disqualified to him, he is subject to two penalties of whipping, once on account of *he shall not take*, and again on account of *he shall not profane*.” And the Rabbis have also said there: “If he has intercourse without betrothal, he is liable to whipping on account of *he shall not profane*.” Thus it is clear that these are two negative commandments. They have also explained there the reason why, for [mere] betrothal without [subsequent] intercourse, he is not liable to whipping, because [Scripture says: *he shall not take … he shall not profane*, meaning:] Why must he not take [her as his wife]? “In order that he may not profane” [his offspring, and therefore if the marriage was not consummated, and he can have no offspring from her, he is not liable merely for the betrothal]. If so, the meaning of the expression, *these shall he not take*, is “because I [the Eternal] admonish him against profaning his seed,” and from this statement we ourselves deduce that his offspring from one of the disqualified women is profaned, [rendered unfit for the priesthood].

footnotes:
⁵⁴ Kiddushin 78 a.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:17:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:17:1)

**דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן אִישׁ מִזַּרְעֲךָ** לֹא אָמַר בְּכָאן "דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו" כַּאֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר בַּפָּרָשִׁיּוֹת כֻּלָּן, וְהַטַּעַם כִּי שָׁם צִוָּה בְּפָרָשִׁיּוֹת הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת, זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה (ויקרא ו':ב') וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת (שם פסוק יח) וְהָאָשָׁם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, אֲבָל בְּכָאן אִם אָמַר "דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו" רָאוּי שֶׁיֹּאמַר "אִישׁ מִכֶּם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם", וְלֹא יִרְצֶה לְהַזְהִיר אֶת אַהֲרֹן עַצְמוֹ בְּתוֹרַת הַמּוּמִין, כִּי אַהֲרֹן קְדוֹשׁ ה' כֻּלּוֹ יָפֶה וּמוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ, אֲבָל יַזְהִירֶנּוּ עַל זַרְעוֹ שֶׁיּוֹרֵם וְיַזְהִיר אוֹתָם לְדֹרֹתָם. וּבְפָרָשַׁת הַטֻּמְאָה בְּסָמוּךְ (ויקרא כ"ב:ב') "דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקָּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", כִּי יִתָּכֵן שֶׁגַּם בְּאַהֲרֹן אֵרַע טֻמְאַת הַמַּגָּע בְּמֵת אוֹ בְּשֶׁרֶץ. וְכַאֲשֶׁר בָּא לְהַזְכִּיר הַצָּרַעַת וְהַזּוֹב, חָזַר וְאָמַר (שם פסוק ד) "אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן", כִּי לֹא יֶאֱרַע זֶה בְּגוּפוֹ כִּי מַלְאַךְ ה' צְבָאוֹת הוּא. וְאָמַר בְּסוֹף הַפָּרָשָׁה (ויקרא כ"א:כ"ד) "וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו", שֶׁרָצָה מֹשֶׁה לְהַזְהִיר גַּם אֶת בָּנָיו שֶׁיִּקְחוּ מִפִּיו תּוֹרָה, וְאָמַר כֵּן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַזְהִיר ב"ד שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל כָּךְ. וּבְת"כ (פרשה ג ה) מָצָאתִי, "כָּל אִישׁ", מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "זֶרַע אַהֲרֹן", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זַרְעוֹ, אַהֲרֹן עַצְמוֹ מִנַּיִן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "כִּי כָל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם" (ויקרא כ"א:י"ח). וְכֵן שָׁנוּ שָׁם (פרק ד א), "זֶרַע אַהֲרֹן", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זַרְעוֹ, אַהֲרֹן עַצְמוֹ מִנַּיִן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "וְהוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב" (ויקרא כ"ב:ד'). וּפֵרוּשׁ "אַהֲרֹן עַצְמוֹ" - הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו, כִּי בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהִתִּיר הָאֲנִינוּת לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל אוּלַי יַתִּיר לוֹ הַמּוּם וְהַצָּרַעַת, וְהֻצְרַךְ לְרַבּוֹתוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁתִּרְמֹז דִּין אַהֲרֹן עַצְמוֹ, כִּי לֹא תִּסְמֹךְ הַתּוֹרָה בְּאַזְהָרוֹתֶיהָ עַל הַנֵּס, אֲבָל כִּסְּתָה עַל אַהֲרֹן לִכְבוֹדוֹ וְלִרְמֹז לָנוּ שֶׁלֹּא יֶאֱרַע לוֹ כֵן:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
SPEAK UNTO AARON, SAYING: WHOSOEVER HE BE OF THY SEED THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS. He does not state here “speak unto Aaron and his sons” as He does in all [other] sections,⁵⁵ because there in the Scriptural portions He commanded the laws of the offerings: *This is the law of the burnt-offering;*⁵⁵ *This is the law of the sin-offering*,⁵⁶, 6:18. and *of the guilt-offering*,⁵⁷, 7:1. and so on [and these laws apply to all priests — Aaron and his sons alike]. But here, if He were to have said “Speak unto Aaron and his sons,” He would have had to continue by saying: “Whosoever *of you* be throughout your generations” [which would have included Aaron among priests that might have a blemish, which this section discusses], and He did not want to warn Aaron himself about the law of blemishes, because *Aaron the holy one of the Eternal*⁵⁸ is *all fair*⁵⁹. and there shall be no blemish in him. Instead He admonished him concerning his seed, that he is to teach them these laws and warn them throughout their generations. In the section on impurity immediately following, however, He does say: *Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel*,⁶⁰ because it is possible that even Aaron might happen to become impure by touching a corpse or a dead swarming thing.⁶¹ But when He comes to mention the impurity of leprosy or a flux, He again says, *What man soever of the seed of Aaron*,⁶² because this would not happen to the body [of Aaron], *for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts*.⁶³ At the end of this section He states, *So Moses spoke unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel*,⁶⁴ [although Moses had been told, *Speak unto Aaron, saying*, etc.], because Moses wanted to warn Aaron’s sons as well in order that they should receive the instruction directly from his mouth. He also said so *to the children of Israel*, which means that he warned the court of Israel on this matter.
Now in the Torath Kohanim I have found this text:⁶⁵ 3:5. “*Whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish*.⁶⁶ Why is this said [since it has already been mentioned in the preceding verse]? But because it says *the seed of Aaron*,⁶⁷. Also in Verse 21: *of the seed of Aaron*. I would only know that this law [of blemishes] applies to Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse which states, *For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish*.”⁶⁶ Similarly it has been taught there:⁶⁸ 4:1. “*The seed of Aaron*.⁶⁷. Also in Verse 21: *of the seed of Aaron*. I would only know that this law [of blemishes] applies to Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse which states, *For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish. ”*⁶⁶ Similarly it has been taught there:⁶⁸ 4:1. “*The seed of Aaron*.⁶⁷. Also in Verse 21: *of the seed of Aaron*. I would only know that this law applies to Aaron’s seed. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse *and he is a leper, or hath an issue*.”⁶² Now [that which the Torath Kohanim states] “Aaron himself,” means [any] High Priest *that shall be in his stead among his sons*,⁶⁹ [but it does not mean Aaron personally, since, as explained above, Scripture does not mention Aaron’s name with reference to having a blemish or suffering from leprosy or an issue. It did, however, have to include the High Priest in the law of blemishes], because having permitted the High Priest [to officiate] whilst he is an *onen*, one might perhaps think that it also permits him [to officiate] although he has a blemish or leprosy. For this reason it became necessary to include him in this law. Or it may be that [the Torath Kohanim] *is* alluding to the law about Aaron himself, for the Torah in its prohibitions does not rely on a miracle. However, it concealed it [the prohibition] in connection with Aaron, in his honor, thus hinting that this would [in fact] not happen to him.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ Above, 6:2, etc.
⁵⁵ Above, 6:2, etc.
⁵⁶ Ibid.
⁵⁷ Ibid.
⁵⁸ Psalms 106:16.
⁵⁹ Song of Songs 4:7. And there is no blemish in thee
⁶⁰ Further, 22:2.
⁶¹ Above, 11:29-31.
⁶² Further, 22:4.
⁶³ Malachi 2:7.
⁶⁴ Further, Verse 24.
⁶⁵ Torath Kohanim, Emor
⁶⁶ Verse 18.
⁶⁷ In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed
⁶⁶ Verse 18.
⁶⁸ Torath Kohanim, Emor
⁶⁷ In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed
⁶⁶ Verse 18.
⁶⁸ Torath Kohanim, Emor
⁶⁷ In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed
⁶² Further, 22:4.
⁶⁹ Above, 6:15.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 21:18:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 21:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/21:18:1)

**חָרֻם אוֹ שָׂרוּעַ** כֹּל שֶׁחָטְמוֹ שָׁקוּעַ בֵּין שְׁתֵּי הָעֵינַיִם, שֶׁכּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא כ"א:י"ח). וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרשה ג ז) וּבַגְּמָרָא דִּבְכוֹרוֹת (מג) שָׁנִינוּ, חָרוּם - שֶׁחָטְמוֹ שָׁקוּעַ; חָטְמוֹ בָּלוּם, חָטְמוֹ סוֹלֵד, חָטְמוֹ נוֹטֵף מִנַּיִן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "אוֹ חָרוּם". אַבָּא יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵין חָרוּם אֶלָּא הַכּוֹחֵל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, הִפְלַגְתָּ, אע"פ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִכְחֹל שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת. וּלְשׁוֹן "חָרוּם" מִלְּשׁוֹן "כָּל חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יָחֳרַם" (ויקרא כ"ז:כ"ט), "וְהַחֲרַמְתִּי אֶת עָרֵיהֶם" (במדבר כא ב), עִנְיַן חֻרְבָּן, וְיִקָּרֵא "חָרוּם" כִּי הַחֹטֶם הַדְרַת פָּנִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (יבמות קכ), אֵין מְעִידִין אֶלָּא עַל פַּרְצוּף פָּנִים עִם הַחֹטֶם, וַאֲשֶׁר אֵין חָטְמוֹ כְּתֹאַר בְּנֵי הָאָדָם צוּרָתוֹ חֲרֵבָה. וְטַעַם "אוֹ גִבֵּן" (ויקרא כ"א:כ'), נִמְשָׁךְ אֶל מִלַּת "בְּעֵינוֹ", אוֹ שֶׁהוּא גִּבֵּן בְּעֵינוֹ, אוֹ דַק אוֹ תְּבַלֻּל בְּעֵינוֹ, וְהוּא שֶׁגַּבּוֹת עֵינָיו שׁוֹכְבוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן, מִלְּשׁוֹן "גַּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" (יחזקאל מג יג), "עַל גַּבִּי חָרְשׁוּ חֹרְשִׁים" (תהלים קכט ג). וְהִזְכִּיר תְּחִלָּה הַמּוּם בְּחֶסְרוֹן הָאֵבָרִים, עִוֵּר אוֹ פִסֵּחַ, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵּן בְּקַטְנוּת כְּגוֹן הֶחָרוּם, וּבְגֹדֶל כְּגוֹן הַשָּׂרוּעַ, וְאח"כ בְּשִׁבְרוֹן הָעֲצָמוֹת, אע"פ שֶׁכָּל אֵבָרָיו עִמּוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם פָּסוּל, וְאח"כ פָּסַל אֲפִילּוּ בְּכִעוּר הַתֹּאַר, כְּגוֹן הַגִּבֵּן וַאֲשֶׁר בְּעֵינָיו הַגַּרְעִינִין, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּבְשַׂר הַגּוּף, כִּי צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נָקִי וְחָלָק, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן הוֹסִיף בַּעַל הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר בֵּיצָיו נְפוּחִים בּוֹ, אע"פ שֶׁהוּא חֹלִי נָהוּג בַּזְּקֵנִים וְאֵינוֹ מוּם בַּעֶצֶם אוֹ בַּבָּשָׂר. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ בֵּאֲרוּ (בכורות פרקים ו ז) מוּמִים רַבִּים נִלְמָדִים מֵאֵלֶּה, כִּי הַנִּזְכָּרִים בַּתּוֹרָה אָבוֹת לָהֶן:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
O (OR) CHARUM O (OR) SARU’A.’ “[*Charum*] is anyone whose nose is sunk between his two eyes, so that he is able to paint both his eyes [for cosmetic purposes] with one stroke.” This is Rashi’s language. And in the Torath Kohanim⁷⁰ 3:7. and in the Gemara of Tractate Bechoroth⁷¹ we have been taught: “*Charum* is one whose nose is sunk. [How do I know about] one whose nose is obstructed? or one whose nose is turned up? or whose nose overhangs his lips? From the expression *o charum*, [the word *‘o’* (or) includes these blemishes]. Aba Yosei says: The word *charum* means only one who can paint both his eyes with one stroke. But the Rabbis said to him: ‘You have overstated it. Even though he cannot paint both his eyes with one stroke’” [because his nose is not so deeply sunken, he may nonetheless come within the term *charum*].⁷² is one whose nose is so far sunk that he is able to paint both his eyes with one stroke. But, as pointed out by Ramban, this is only the opinion of a single Sage, Aba Yosei, while all the other Sages differ with him, as explained in the text. Mizrachi too, writes that he does not know what prompted Rashi to follow the opinion of a single Sage. See also Gur Aryeh.
The term *charum* is of the expressions: *None ‘cheirem’* (*doomed*) *who shall be ‘yachoram’* (*doomed of man*);⁷³ *‘v’hacharamti’*(*and I shall utterly destroy*) *their cities*,⁷⁴ the meaning thereof being destruction. Now [a man with a sunken nose] is called *charum* because the nose determines the beauty of the face, just as the Rabbis have said:⁷⁵ “Evidence [as to the identity of a corpse] may not be given unless [from proof afforded by recognition] of the face together with the nose,” and if someone’s nose is unlike that of the appearance of normal people, the shape [of his face] is deemed “destroyed.”
*‘O gibein o dak o t’valul b’eino.’*⁷⁶ The expression ‘*o gibein’* is connected with the word *‘b’eino’* (*in his eye*), meaning that he is either a *gibein* in his eye, or has a *dak* (membrane) or a *t’valul* (a speck) in his eye, *gibein* meaning that the hair of his eyebrows are so long that they lie over his eyes, of the expressions: *‘gav’* (*the side of*) *the altar;*⁷⁷ *upon ‘gabi’* (*my back*) *plowed the plowers*.⁷⁸
Now Scripture mentioned⁷⁹ first [in Verse 18 before us] blemishes of missing limbs: *a blind man, or a lame*, and afterwards [it
mentioned blemishes which are a result of] the smallness of the limbs, such as the *charum* [whose nose is sunk into his face, and consequently is shorter than the normal nose], or a result of the largeness of the limbs, such as the *saru’a* [meaning “anything too long,” as where one eye is larger than the other, or one leg longer]. Then in the following verse [19] it cites blemishes because of the breaking of bones even though he has all his limbs with him, nonetheless, if the bone is broken, he is disqualified [from ministering the Service]. Then [in Verse 20] He disqualified [a priest from performing the Service] even on account of a hideous appearance, such as one whose eyebrows overhang his eyes, or who has kernel-like growths in his eyes [like a membrane or a speck], and then it mentioned blemishes on the flesh of the body [such as scabs or scurvy], because he [the priest] must be clean and smooth [in flesh]. And afterwards He added [*o m’roach ashech*, which means] one who has wind [and as a result of which] his testicles are swollen, even though it is a sickness common amongst older people, and is not a blemish in the bone or flesh. Now our Rabbis have explained⁸⁰ many other blemishes which are deduced from these, for those mentioned in the Torah are merely the primary [categories of those] blemishes [deduced by the Rabbis].

footnotes:
⁷⁰ Torath Kohanim, Emor
⁷¹ Bechoroth 43 b.
⁷² Ramban’s objection to Rashi’s interpretation is thus clear. Rashi stated that charum
⁷³ Further, 27:29.
⁷⁴ Numbers 21:2.
⁷⁵ Yebamoth 120 a.
⁷⁶ Verse 20.
⁷⁷ Ezekiel 43:13.
⁷⁸ Psalms 129:3.
⁷⁹ Ramban now sets forth the thought that the blemishes mentioned in these verses are primary types of blemishes, which are to serve as examples for other defects to be deduced therefrom. Thus the Torah mentioned first, cases of missing limbs, then uneven limbs etc. Thus the list here, although not exhaustive, served as the source for the deduction of other defects enumerated by the Rabbis of the Talmud.
⁸⁰ Bechoroth, Chapter 6.