[לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו], “he must not ritually defile himself on account of the dead [members] of his people.” If he cannot defile himself in order to bury his relatives, how much less may he do so for people not related to him!

כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו, “except for his kin that is close to him;” according to Torat Kohanim, the word הקרוב אליו, excludes a girl only betrothed to him who has not yet become his wife in the full meaning of the word. Seeing that the priest may not defile himself on account of a woman only betrothed to him, it is clear that he may defile himself on account of a sister who is betrothed but not married yet. Concerning the words הקרובה אליו, Rashi explains that they include a sister who is betrothed. This makes sense, as seeing that an ordinary priest may not defile himself in order to bury a woman betrothed to him, it is logical that he should be allowed to defile himself for a sister who is only betrothed. If his sister’s husband to be had been a priest, he would not have been permitted to busy herself with her funeral. The Talmud in tractate Yevamot folio 22, understands the word שארו as referring to the priest’s properly married wife. This is also in agreement of what is written in verse 4: לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו, “a husband shall not defile himself for his wife’s corpse if she had not been legally permitted to be the wife of a priest.” Unless the clause להחלו, “to disgrace him,” applied to his “wife,” he would, of course, be permitted to defile himself on her corpse. Furthermore, the fact that the Torah makes a distinction between a sister who has remained a virgin, (verse three) and it describes such a sister as הקרובה אליו, “who is close to him seeing that she had not been married,” by adding: “he may defile himself on her account,” it is clear that if she had been married already, her brother the priest, would not be permitted to defile himself at her funeral. The reason is simply that in that event her husband is considered as closer to her than her brother, though the former is a blood relative. The degree of relationship through marriage has been spelled out in the Torah already in Genesis 2,24, where the Torah described the bond of marriage as making “one flesh” out of husband and wife. There is no greater degree of קרובה, physical intimacy, than that.

לאמו ולאביו, “but for his mother and his father’s [funeral] etc;” just as he may only defile himself for burying mother and father who had been fully alive, so this exception for other members of his closest family applies only to those who had been alive for at least thirty days. He must not defile himself on account of stillborn children, for instance. Seeing that the Torah saw fit to mention the mother before the father when discussing the rules for ordinary priests, why, when discussing the parents of the High Priest in verse eleven, does the Torah mention the father ahead of the mother? If it is forbidden for the ordinary priest to defile himself ritually at his mother’s funeral, there is no need to repeat this as there is no doubt who was one’s mother, whereas there is no certainty as to who was one’s father. The father is added therefore to tell us that notwithstanding this uncertainty, he may defile himself at his father’s funeral. In the case of the High Priest, the Torah mentions his mother last in order to tell us that in spite of our being certain the woman being buried was his mother, he is still not permitted to defile himself on her account. לאחיו ולאחותו, “concerning his brother or his sister, etc.;” we find that according to Torat Kohanim that we might have thought that the Torah speaks of a brother and sister of the same mother; in order to show us that this is not so, the Torah adds the words: ,לבנו ולבתו, “and concerning his son and his daughter.” Just as the son and daughter are his potential heirs, so the brothers and sisters that are meant here are only those that are potentially heirs, i.e. they have the same father. The law of inheritance excludes the mother.

ולאחותו הבתולה, “and his sister as long as she is still a virgin;” The Talmud in tractate Nazir, folio 47, commenting on this verse, sees in the repetition of the word ולאחותו, “and on account of his sister,” an allusion to the contrast with a corpse who has no one claiming it, and which therefore even the High Priest is not only permitted but commanded to defile himself and bury, out of consideration for human dignity. We find the following comment on this subject in Maimonides, laws concerning mourning, chapter 3, halacha 8: if a High Priest encounters a corpse along the way, and he finds himself so far from the nearest human being that even if he yells at the top of his voice no one can hear him, he is obliged to proceed with burying this corpse. This ruling is based on the Talmud, tractate Yevamot folio 89: ”If the High Priest calls out in order to attract the attention of other human beings, and no one answers his call, this is the situation known as מת מצוה, “a corpse that anyone is called upon to bring to burial forthwith.” This is a decree of great severity, i.e. if there is anyone else available the High Priest must not defile himself in order to perform this last act of kindness for the dead.

לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו, “a husband [a priest, of course, Ed.] among his people, shall not contaminate himself to one (his wife) who had become his wife as a result of her having desecrated him.” According to the author of b’chor shor, we must understand this as if the Torah had written: לבעל בעמיו, even if he is a High Priest.” [The word בעל is being used by that commentator as “the highest authority,” not only the husband, i.e. his wife’s authority. Ed.] Even in the situation described, an alternate priest who is not allowed to defile himself except to the relatives mentioned in our portion may not substitute for the High Priest to save him from performing the commandment of מת מצוה.

אשר (יהיה) בו מום לא יגש להקריב, “that has a blemish shall not come close in order to present an offering.” The Talmud in tractate Kidushin, folio 66, raises the question of why the verse in Numbers 25,12: הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום , “here I bless him with My covenant of peace” (to Pinchas) was necessary. It suggests that it was based on what is written here, i.e. that the priest must be שלם, unblemished. The subject needs further study.

אך אל הפרוכת לא יבא, “but he must not go beyond the dividing curtain;” Torat Kohanim demonstrates why the additional mention of the altar in this verse was necessary by stating that if the Torah had only mentioned the dividing curtain, we might have thought that seeing that anything beyond was the Holy of Holies, anyone who was not a priest was forbidden to enter there, and if it had written only that the altar was out of bounds to them that the reason was that they were not allowed to perform sacrificial rituals. By mentioning both the dividing curtain and the altar situated in the Sanctuary, no one could make such an error.