## Tur HaArokh, Leviticus

###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:1:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:1:1)

**אמור אל הכהנים.**אמור ואמרת להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים. וכתב הרמב"ן והזהיר כמה פעמים בתורה על הקטנים בדם ובשרצים ובטומאה ומהם נלמוד לכל איסורין שבתורה וכתב עוד האזהרה הזאת שלא נסייע לקטנים שיעברו אבל אם הם יעשו לדעת עצמם אין אנו מצווין עליהם להפרישם. ונ"ל דודאי לענין טומאה מצווים להפרישם אף אם יעשו לדעת עצמם ולכך לא אמרו בלשון שאמרו במקום אחר קטן אוכל נבילות אין ב"ד מצווים להפרישו דוודאי מצווים להפרישו דגבי דם ושרצים דרשינן ליה מייתורא לא תאכלום ודרשינן לא תאכילום ההיא ודאי לא מרבה אלא שלא להאכילו בידים אבל אם אוכל מעצמו אין מצווים להפרישו אבל הכא דדריש ליה מייתורא דקרא משמע בכל ענין אפי' אם בא לעבור מעצמו מצווין להפרישו וטעמא משום קדושה דכהונה. וכתב עוד הרמב"ן ופי' הפסוק על פי מדרשו אמור אל הכהנים ותחזור ותאמר להם שלא יטמאו וריבוי האזהרות מלמד שמצוה להזהירם שיהיו כל בני אהרן נשמרים מזה גם הקטנים. וי"מ מדשני קרא בדיבוריה דבכל דוכתא אמר בני אהרן והכא הכהנים בני אהרן להכי דרשינן אמור אל הכהנים שיאמרו לבניהם. וכתב ר' אברהם אחר שהזהיר ישראל ובני אהרן בכללם להיותם קדושים הזכיר גם בבני אהרן שהם חייבים להשתמר גם מדברים אחרים בעבור שהם משרתי ה'. ויתכן להיות פירושו אמור אל הכהנים הפרשה הנזכרת למעלה כי הם מורי התורה והמזהירים את העם ואמרת אליהם המצות שהם חייבים לבדם לשמרם. וכתב עליו הרמב"ן ואיננו נכון ועל דעתי בפשט הפסוק אמור כמו דבר אל הכהנים ואמרת כענין שנאמר בכמה מקומות דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם ואומר כן בפרשיות שרוצה להזהיר בהן מאוד או לחומר הענין או מפני שהיו מורגלים לחטוא בהם ופירושו דבר אל העם בשמי ואמרת אליהם ככה כענין בא אל פרעה ואמרת אליו. וי"מ כי פי' דבר אל בני ישראל שיאספו אליך ואמרת אליהם דברי וכן אמור אל הכהנים שיאספו אליך. ופי' הכהנים כתב הרמב"ן כי במצות שהם בענייני הקרבנות יאמר אל אהרן ואל בניו ואינו מזכירם בשם הכהונה כי העניינים הם בקרבנות או במעלת הקודש אבל בכאן שמזהיר שלא יטמאו במת לעולם אפי' בעת שלא יבואו למקדש והיא מעלת הכהונה בהם בעצמם לכך מזכיר הכהנים לומר בעבור שהם כהני ה' ומשרתיו שינהגו כבוד וגדולה בעצמם ולא יטמאו למת לעולם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
אמור אל הכהנים, “say to the Priests, etc.” The repetition of the words: אמור ואמרת, are intended to signal that the adults are meant to train their youngsters in Judaism and its mores.
 Nachmanides writes that the warning by the Torah to train the children while they are still small occurs several times in the Torah. It occurs in connection with the legislation not to eat blood, as well as in the prohibition not to eat creepers and the ritual contamination caused by the dead bodies of such creepers. (Compare *Midrash* Proverbs 14,33) We learn from these various instances that under no circumstances are minors to be encouraged to do things the Torah forbade for adults. However, if such minors, on their own initiative, engage in activities for adults, the adults are not legally required to interfere.
 It seems to me, (Nachmanides continuing) that as far as ritual contamination is concerned the adults are required to prevent their youngsters from doing this even if the children had themselves initiated these activities forbidden to their parents. This is the reason why the sages did not say –as they had done in respect of eating dead carcasses-“that if a minor is observed eating such meat from dead animals that have not been ritually slaughtered that the court does not need to interfere.” [if the youngster has no father whose duty it is to raise him. Ed.] Nachmanides quotes Psalms 5,2 הקשיבו לקול שועי in support of his view, as well as the extraneous words לא תאכלום, “you must not eat them,” which appear in connection with the legislation to eat neither blood nor creepers. (Leviticus 11,42) The sages interpret this as if the Torah had written לא תאכילום, “do not feed them, etc.” (*Yevamot* 113) The only reason that the Torah had added this little statement after having forbidden the eating of these reptiles outright previously even with the rider that eating such creepers even contaminates one’s clothing, must be to add the prohibition not to feed such to anyone else with one’s own hands.
 In our verse here, where the Torah is concerned with the state of ritual purity to be maintained by the priests at all times, the wording is such that it even imposes the need to restrain youngsters from eating such contaminating food when the youngster got hold of it by himself and was not fed by an adult. The reason is that the ritual purity of the priests, even their minors, is to be inviolate as far as is humanly possible.
 Nachmanides, adding an *aggadic* interpretation to our verse, adds that the repetition of the words אמור ואמרת, are both addressed to the same priests, a second time, i.e. the Torah feels the need to repeat these instructions again and again to impress upon them the importance of their maintaining their ritual purity. Not only priests engaged in Temple service, not only adult priests, but any male born to the priesthood is charged with preserving his status of ritual purity.
 Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah had seen fit to alter its mode of address by writing here אל הכהנים בני אהרן instead of simply אל בני אהרן, the meaning is that the כהנים are to transmit the instructions to בניהם, their children even while they are still minors. 
 Ibn Ezra writes that after the Torah had requested that the whole Jewish nation be careful of their ritual purity, the Torah now repeats this theme once more when addressing the priests to whom this is so much more important in their daily lives.
 It is possible that the interpretation of the words אמור אל הכהנים is a reminder that it is these priests who are charged with teaching the people the laws of the Torah, and it is their duty to warn the people not to become negligent in their observance of the laws of ritual impurity even when there is no immediate requirement to be ritually pure in their daily tasks.
 Nachmanides writes concerning the last mentioned interpretation that he does not agree with it, and that in his opinion the word אמור here is similar to the word דבר elsewhere in the Torah. אמור אל הכהנים is equivalent toדבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, [such as in connection with זב or ציצית et al. Ed.] The wording is dictated either by reason of the importance the Torah places on what follows, or because people were in the habit of disregarding the particular laws which followed.
 Concerning the word הכהנים in our verse, Nachmanides points out that when the Torah addresses the priests in their capacity as functionaries in the Temple carrying out the sacrificial service, etc., the term is simply דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons,” the fact that they are also priests is not even mentioned, whereas here when the subject is ritual purity, in other words something touching the essence of their being, the Torah does draw attention to this. The message is that not only must the priests be on guard not to enter the Tabernacle while ritually impure, etc., but, they must maintain such purity also “off duty,” so to speak. [This was important in later years when there were thousands of priests and each one had only two weeks’ service, and even during those two weeks only served on a single day in each week. Ed.] As a result of our verses here, priests who do not take part in funerals do not do so because they consider themselves superior, but because the Torah forced them to act in what to some might appear in the wrong light. They maintain a state of purity for G’d’s sake, so as always to be on “call,” if the occasion should arise.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:1:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:1:2)

**לנפש לא יטמא.**כתב הרמב"ן שלא יטמא כל אחד מהם לנפש:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
לנפש לא יטמא, “he shall not contaminate himself for an ordinary dead person.” According to Nachmanides the word לנפש is to be read as part of what follows, i.e. “he must not contaminate himself on account of a dead person.”


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:2:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:2:1)

**כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו לאמו ולאביו.**בכהן הדיוט הקדים אמו לאביו ובכהן גדול הקדים אביו לאמו לפי שבכהן הדיוט אמר שיטמא הקדים אמו לומר לא מיבעיא אמו שהיא וודאית אמו שמטמא אלא אפילו לאביו שהוא ספק מטמא לו ובכהן גדול שהוזהר שלא לטמא הקדים אביו לומר לא מיבעיא אביו שהוא ספק אלא אפילו לאמו שהיא וודאית לא יטמא לה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו, לאמו ולאביו, “except for a near relative; (or) on account of his mother or of his father, etc.” If he is a priest of the regular category, he may or must contaminate himself on account of the above-mentioned (and some other) relatives. This is why the mother here is mentioned before the father. In the case of the High Priest when even contamination on account of wife, father and mother, is prohibited, the Torah mentions the father ahead of the mother (verse 11). The Torah does not differentiate between mother and father, though we might have thought that the “father” does not need to be mentioned separately, since even the mother whose identity as mother is beyond question is out of bounds.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:4:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:4:1)

**לא יטמא בעל בעמיו.**פירש"י הבעל לאשתו פסולה וכו'. והרמב"ן פי' בעל כמו מבעלי יהודה שהוא מנכבדי יהודה וכמו בעל הבית שהוא אדון ונכבד הבית ופי' הפסוק לא יטמא נכבד בעמיו להחל את כבודו שבא לפרש כי למעלת הכהן בעבור שהוא ראוי להיות הגדול בעמיו מזהירו שלא יחלל מעלתו בטומאתו למתים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, “A husband among his people shall not contaminate himself to desecrate himself.” *Rashi* understands this verse as referring to a priest who has married someone forbidden to him as a wife, but whose marriage is recognized in Jewish *halachah* as such.
 Nachmanides understands the word בעל here as similar to that same word in Samuel II 6,2 מבעלי יהודה, from the “notables of the tribe of Yehudah.” [And other similar verses]. Accordingly, the message appears to be that priests are not only warned by the Torah not to defile themselves legally, but to be conscious of their position among the people at all times and to conduct themselves accordingly, so that they do not bring shame on the institution of the priesthood. One such example would be marrying someone obviously not suited, such as a harlot. Defiling himself by attending funerals of the people not his near relatives is among the things he must not do.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:5:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:5:1)

**לא יקרחה.**בה' כתוב לחייב על כל קרחה וקרחה אפי' קרח ה' קרחות בפעם אחת. וכתב ר' אברהם וטעם המצוה לזכרים ולא לנקבות כי ראש מוקרח וזקן מגולח ובשר שרוט לא ישמש לפני ה':

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
לא יקרחו קרחה, “They are not to make bald spots, etc.” The reason why the word קרחה is spelled with the letter ה at the end instead of the letter ו which would signal the normal plural mode, is to teach that people making more than one such bald spot (not only the priests, by the way,) are culpable for each such bald spot.
 Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah commands this only to the males is because the males who are the only priests performing service in the Temple, must not appear before G’d with their heads shorn or their beard shaved off. Nor must they appear before *Hashem* when they had made incisions on their flesh or skin.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:6:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:6:1)

**קדושים יהיו.**כתב הרמב"ן הקדושה היא הפרישות כאשר פירשתי למעלה ובא לומר שאפי' במותר לישראל יהיו הכהנים פרושים שיבדלו מטומאת המתים ונשואי הנשים שאינן הגונות להם. ופי':

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
קדושים יהיו, “They shall be holy, etc.” Nachmanides writes that קדושה is a term describing a certain type of abstinence, as he had explained on previous of occasions. In the case of the priests, the Torah re-emphasises this to teach that even though the Torah had already made holiness a state every Israelite is to strive for, the priests must abstain even from things that are perfectly permissible for the ordinary Israelite. The most prominent example of these is the *mitzvah* to busy oneself with the burial of the dead. Another, well known example, is the restriction the Torah imposes on the priests in the type of woman that is eligible to become the wife of a priest.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:6:2
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:6:2)

**כי אני ה' מקדשכם.**עם הכהנים מדבר כאשר התחיל אמור אל הכהנים. אי נמי חוזר אל הכהנים (והעם) והטעם כי מאחר שהוא מקריב לחם אלקיך קדוש יהי' לך כי על ידו אני מקדש אתכם ומשרה שכינתי במקדשכם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
כי אני ה' מקדשכם, ”seeing that it is I, *Hashem,* Who sanctifies you.” The switch to direct speech (you) again, signals a continuation of the opening line in the chapter that had been addressed exclusively to the priests. Alternately, G’d does indeed refer to both the priests and the people as a whole, but seeing that the priests represents the entire nation being the one who presents G’d’s “food” on the altar, He addresses them in the first instance. The people’s state of holiness necessitates that the priests represent them in the manner prescribed.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:7:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:7:1)

**אשה זונה וחללה.**בכהן הדיוט אמר זונה וחללה וגרושה ובכהן גדול היפך הסדר ואמר גרושה חללה זונה. ואמר **א"א הרא"ש יצ"ו** הטעם לפי שבכהן הדיוט אמר כסדר לא זו אף זו לא מיבעיא זונה החמורה שפסולה מחמת עצמה אלא אפי' חללה ואפי' גרושה שהיא קלה עדיין יותר אבל כהן גדול שהוסיף בו אלמנה התחיל בו באלמנה שהוסיף לו ולפי שהתחיל באלמנה שהיא קלה שבכולם סיים באותו הסדר לומר הקל קל קודם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
אשה זונה וחללה לא יקחו, “they are not to marry a woman who is either a harlot (has desecrated herself) or has been desecrated through no fault of her own. (by birth)” When speaking of the ordinary priest, the Torah lists the women disqualified in the order of “harlot, disqualified by birth, divorced,” whereas when speaking of the High Priest the order is reversed “widow, divorced, disqualified by birth, harlot.” 
 My late father of sainted memory [the *R’osh,* Ed.] explained the reason for this reversal in sequence as follows: in the case of the ordinary priest the Torah follows the pattern of forbidding not only a woman who had disqualified herself by her own conduct, but even women who had been disqualified by accidents of fate, or even women who clearly had once qualified to become the wives of priests but who had been divorced by their first husbands. Seeing that in the case of the High Priest the Torah added another disqualification, i.e. widow, it mentioned this special disqualification first. Having started with a disqualification which is neither genetic nor due to character faults, the Torah proceeds from the relatively minor disqualification to the most severe one, i.e. being a harlot.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:12:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:12:1)

**ומן המקדש לא יצא.**פירש"י שאינו הולך אחר המטה ועוד בא לומר שעובד אונן וכו'. וכתב הרמב"ן דשני המדרשים חלוקים זה על זה שאם בא הכתוב להתיר לו לעבוד אונן שאינו צריך לצאת מן המקדש בשביל אנינותו א"כ אין אזהרה שלא לילך אחר המטה ועוד לפי מה שדורש ולא יחלל שאינו מחלל עבודתו אם לא יצא א"כ אין כאן שום אזהרה ובברייתא בת"כ מפורש שלא יחלל הוא לאו גמור שלא יניח עבודתו ויצא וכן בעל הלכות מונה אותו בחשבון הלאוין. ופי' הוא ז"ל שעיקר הכתוב מזהיר לכהן גדול שלא יצא מן המקדש בשעת עבודה על כל נפשות מת ולא יחלל המקדש שיעזוב עבודתו לכבוד המת וכ"ש שאם הניח העבודה ללא דבר ויצא שעובר בלאו הזה אלא הזכירו הכתוב בענין המת להתיר לו העבודה כשהוא אונן ומאחר שהיא מותרת לו אם יניחנה ברצון עצמו יהיה חלול המקדש. ומה שדורש ממנו בסנהדרין שאינו יוצא אחר המטה הוא מדבריהם שהם הנהיגו סלסול בכהן גדול שלא יצא אחר המטה לפי שאינו מטמא ואדם בהול על מתו ושמא יגע בו אבל כהן הדיוט לקרוביו הוא מטמא ועל אחרים אינו בהול:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ומן המקדש לא יצא, “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary.” According to *Rashi* this means that the High Priest is not even to walk behind the bier of his father or mother, and that he is even to continue with his daily priestly routine while still in the condition known as *onan, a state of* pre-mourning before his dead has been buried.
 Nachmanides, commenting on *Rashi’s* interpretation, writes that we are faced with two conflicting views about this verse expressed by different *midrashim.* If we assume that the verse meant to permit the High Priest, or better, to instruct the High Priest, not to interrupt his Temple service even while he is in the state of *aninut,* pre-burial mourning, there was no need for the Torah to mention that he must not take time out to walk behind the funeral procession and that he is not permitted to leave the Sanctuary for that purpose. It follows that what is meant by our verse is not a warning for the High Priest not to walk behind the bier of his father or mother. On the other hand, the *baraitha* cited in *Torat Kohanim* on our verse is quite emphatic that the words ולא יחלל in our verse mean that as long as the High Priest does not leave the Sanctuary he does not desecrate the institution of the Temple even if he does perform the Temple service while in a state of *aninut*. In other words, the injunction not to walk behind the funeral procession is a definitive negative commandment. The author of *halachot gedolot* also shares the view cited in *Torat Kohanim*, listing it as such.
 He explains that the principal injunction of our verse consists of forbidding the High Priest to leave the Temple and to thereby interrupt or abandon the sacred task he had been entrusted with by preferring participation in the funeral of his parents, etc., to the task at hand. It follows that if the High Priest were to leave the Holy Temple for a lesser reason this would constitute an even graver dereliction of his duties. The reason why the Torah chose our verse to make this point was in order to allow the High Priest to continue performing his service in spite of the fact that he temporarily finds himself in a state of *aninut.* It follows that if he voluntarily prefers to attend his parents’ funeral, that he would thereby desecrate the Temple.
 Concerning the Talmud in *Sanhedrin 18* where our verse is understood to mean that the High Priest is not to follow the bier, this is not a Biblical injunction, but seeing that by following the bier he might come closer to it than is *halachically* permitted, [closer than 4 cubits. Ed.,] the sages decreed that he must keep the kind of distance from it that places him a block away from the bier, beyond direct visual contact with the bier. An ordinary priest is not subject to such stringent restrictions. He may contaminate himself in respect of the relatives mentioned in our paragraph, but not for the sake of people not related to him genetically.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:14:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:14:1)

**כי אם בתולה מעמיו יקח אשה.**פי' מתחלה אמר (והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח. כצ"ל) בתולה ולא בעולה והוא לאו הבא מכלל עשה ועתה מצוה אותו שיקח בתולה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
כי אם בתולה מעמיו יקח אשה, “but he must take for a wife a virgin belonging to his own people.” These words are the definition of the previous והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח in verse 13. In other words, [if the High Priest was not yet married at the time he was appointed as such, a most unlikely scenario, Ed.] he is not allowed to marry a woman who has already had carnal relations with another man. Verse 13 is what is known as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, negative commandment arrived at by bringing it into line with an existing positive commandment. Now, by repeating the same concept as a positive commandment, it is much stronger. [The author understands the positive message in verse 13 as only an indirect prohibition to marry a woman no longer a virgin. Ed.]


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:15:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:15:1)

**ולא יחלל.**פירש"י לא יקח כדי שלא יחלל. והרמב"ן כתב א"כ אינו לאו אלא טעם ללא יקח. ורבותינו דרשו אותו לאו גמור שאמרו קידש ובעל לוקה שתים אחת משום לא יקח ואחת משום לא יחלל:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ולא יחלל, “so that he will not desecrate, etc.” *Rashi* understands the message of our verse, as “he must not take as a wife someone forbidden to him so that he will not desecrate any male children he will have from such a union.”
 Nachmanides rejects this interpretation saying that if it were correct our verse is not a negative commandment, but merely an explanation of the legislation.
 Our sages (*Kidushin* 78) make plain that our verse is an additional negative commandment, i.e. a priest will receive twice 39 lashes for what might have a appeared as violating a single commandment. In fact he violates לא יקח as well as לא יחלל.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:17:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:17:1)

**דבר אל אהרן איש מזרעך.**כתב הרמב"ן לא אמר כאן אל אהרן ואל בניו כמו בשאר מקומות לפי שלמעלה דבר בענייני הקרבנות תורת העולה והמנחה ושאר הקרבנות אבל כאן אם היה אומר דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו היה צריך לומר איש מכם לדורותיכם אשר יהיה בו מום ולא רצה להזהיר אהרן עצמו בתורת המומין כי אהרן קדוש ה' כולו יפה ומום אין בו אלא הזהירו על זרעו שיורם ויזהיר אותם לדורותם. ובפרשת הטומאה בסמוך דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו וינזרו מקדשי בני ישראל יתכן שגם (באהרן) יארע טומאת מגע במת או בשרץ. ולמטה בסוף הפרשה אמר גם לבני ישראל להזהיר ב"ד של ישראל על כך. וכשבא להזכיר תורת הצרעת אמר וידבר משה אל אהרן ואל בניו הזכיר גם בניו שרצה משה שישמעו מפיו תורה שגם בכאן במומין היה ראוי להזכירם אלא שאי אפשר כדפרישית. ומה שדורש בת"כ על פסוק איש איש מזרע אהרן הכהן והוא צרוע או זב לאו אהרן ממש קאמר שאינו מזכירו על המומין כדפרישית אלא פי' אהרן הכהן הגדול תחתיו מבניו והוצרך לרבות כהן גדול לדין מומין וצרעת שלא תאמר כמו שהותר לו אנינות יתיר לו גם כן מום וצרעת. אי נמי שמזכיר אהרן ברמז שהתורה אינה סומכת על הנס ומ"מ לכבודו כסתה עליו ולא הזכירו בפי' לרמוז שלא יארע כן:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
דבר אל אהרן: איש מזרעך, “speak to Aaron saying: ‘any man of your offspring, etc.’” Nachmanides points out that the Torah here does not use the formula דבר אל אהרן ובניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons,” but it refers to his sons, etc, in the third person. The reason is that earlier Moses, i.e. G’d, had spoken in connection with the sacrifices, whereas if here the Torah had used the same form of address it would have had to add the words איש מכם לדורותיכם אשר יהיה בו מום, “if any one of you (the priests) throughout the generations is afflicted with a physical blemish, etc.” The Torah did not want to include Aaron personally in the list of people who might be stricken with a blemish, seeing that Aaron was a paragon of holiness, physical perfection, etc. The possibility of any priest being stricken with a physical blemish in the future therefore had to be approached in a very sensitive manner, not addressed to anyone in particular. It remained Aaron’s task, of course, to caution his offspring against performing priestly duties while in a blemished state.
 In the paragraph dealing with ritual contamination (chapter 22) where the Torah reverts to its customary formula of “speak to Aaron and his sons, that they should abstain, withdraw from holy domains as soon as they do become contaminated,” there was no need for such sensitivity, as Aaron himself, without being in the least to blame, could become the victim of such ritual contamination, [for instance, if a dead mouse fell upon him. Ed.] 
 Further on in our portion, (22,18) not only Aaron and his sons but all of the Israelites are addressed, the idea being that the courts are warned to intervene in any non observance.
 When it comes to warn the people about the plague of צרעת, Aaron is mentioned at the beginning of chapter 14, as seeing that we have learned that the High Priest continues to perform his functions even while in a state of pre-mourning, אנינות for father and mother, I might have thought that even if he were struck by *tzoraat* this would also not disqualify him from performing his duties. To make sure we do not err in this respect, the Torah introduces that legislation by including Aaron by name. (Leviticus 214,33)
 This confronts us with the statement in *Torat Kohanim* on Leviticus 22,4 איש איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע או זב, “any man from the offspring of Aaron who is either stricken with *tzoraat,* or *zav,* etc.” On this verse *Torat Kohanim* comments that the word והוא means that the legislation might even apply to him personally, if he were to be afflicted with such a dysfunction. This is so, in spite of the fact that on the face of it, the verse appears to restrict itself to the offspring of Aaron.
 It is possible to understand the word אהרן in all of these verses as the (first) High Priest, and as such Aaron is mentioned by name as representative of High Priests throughout the generations, although he himself had long ceased to be alive. Accordingly, when the *Torat Kohanim* asks: ‘whence do I know that the legislation applies to Aaron personally,’ and it answers that we derive this from the word והוא, the author had never referred to the actual Aaron but to the respective High Priest officiating, if and when the problem raised by our verse should ever occur.
 Alternatively, the mention of Aaron is a hint that the Torah’s legislation is not predicated on miracles –i.e. considers the possibility that Aaron might be stricken with either of the two afflictions mentioned in that verse. However, out of sensitivity for Aaron this possibility is obscured by the word והוא so as to preserve our image of him as a physically perfect specimen.


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:18:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:18:1)

**חרום.**מגזרת חרם כמו והחרמתי את עריהם ענין חורבן כי החוטם הוא עיקר הדרת הפנים וכשאין חוטמו כתואר בני אדם נמצאת צורתו חרבה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
חרום, “someone with a flat nose, without a bridge,” the origin of the word is חרם, as used in והחרמתי את עריהם, “I will utterly deface their cities.” (Numbers 21,2) The nose, i.e. the bridge of the nose, is considered essential to someone having a handsome face. Absence of that bridge deprives a person of his human appearance, [makes him appear like an inferior species, such as an ape. Ed.]


###### Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:20:1
[Tur HaArokh, Leviticus 21:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Leviticus/r/21:20:1)

**או גבן.**נמשך אל מלת בעינו שגובן בעיניו שגביני עיניו שוכבים על עיניו והוא מלשון על גבי חרשו חורשים. תחלה הזכיר מומין שבחסרון האיברים עור או פסח ואחרי כן בקטנות כגון החרום ואחרי כן בגודל כגון השרוע ואחרי כן בשברון העצמות אע"פ שכל איבריו עמו כיון שנשבר העצם פסול ואחרי כן פסל אפי' בכיעור התואר כגון הגבן ואשר בעיניו הגרעינין ואחרי כן בבשר כי צריך שיהי' נקי וחלק ואחרי כן הוסיף בעל הרוח אשר ביציו נפוחים אע"פ שהוא חולה נוהג בזקנים ואינו לא בעצם ולא בבשר:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
או גבן, ”or abnormally long eyebrows;” the word appears in conjunction with eyes, as in שגובן בעיניו, describing eyebrows so bushy that they cover one’s eyes. The word is related to גב, “back,” as in על גבי חרשו חורשים, “plowmen plowed across my back” (Psalms 129,3)
 The Torah began by listing the kind of physical blemishes that consist of visibly missing or malfunctioning limbs or organs, limbs, etc., proceeding to examples of priests whose limbs are all there and functioning, but who suffer from blemishes making them appear ugly. This is followed by defects which were not congenital but the result of bone fractures, etc. At the end, we even hear about blemishes that affect the mind of a person such as knowing that one’s reproductive organs, though not visibly blemished, suffered the kind of injuries which make the organ permanently dysfunctional.