Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them. Do we not already know that the priests are the sons of Aaron? What is learned by the sons of Aaron? Also, the repetition of the term say needs explanation. It seems to me to say about this that Aaron was the holy one of God, the source of holiness, and from him holiness was drawn also to his sons, but they were not like him in every aspect because they were distant from the source of holiness. Therefore, Aaron, who was the source of holiness, was not permitted to defile himself for any relative, even for a father or mother. So too, every High Priest from his seed is like him in every aspect, as he receives the abundance of holiness inherently and primarily from the primary holiness of God, as it is written, for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. The term crown denotes separation, meaning that he was separated through the anointing of his God, which was placed upon him directly, not through an intermediary. But the sons of Aaron, who received holiness through Aaron as an intermediary, are described differently, for on their own they have no holiness, but by virtue of being the sons of Aaron, they have holiness. Therefore, their law is divided: on account of the portion of holiness they received, they should not defile themselves for distant dead, but because they are somewhat distant from the source of holiness, they are permitted to defile themselves for close relatives. Therefore, the saying is repeated, because the first saying, Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, indicates that by virtue of their being sons of Aaron, they received holiness through Aaron as an intermediary, so it is appropriate to command them, he shall not defile himself for the dead among his people. And say to them is a second saying, referring to their own essence, which does not have so much additional holiness, as is hinted at in the words to them, as if they were not the sons of Aaron. Therefore, it is appropriate to command them a separate command, except for his relative, that they are permitted to defile themselves for close relatives.

Another explanation, the exact opposite, is to tell them a first statement that holiness clings to them because they are the sons of Aaron, who was the source of holiness. But you shall say to them refers to themselves, that even if they were not sons of Aaron, nevertheless, since they are servants of the living God, it is not proper for them to become impure except for his close relative. For it is enough for a servant to be like his master, as even the Holy One, blessed be He, concerns Himself with His relatives, as it is written, And He buried [Moses] in the valley (Deuteronomy 34:6), referring to those who are close to the Holy One, blessed be He.

For his kin [relative]. The reason for the prohibition of impurity is because of the spirit of impurity that remains attached to the human body. Therefore it is said he shall not become impure for a soul and it does not say “by a soul” because the soul itself is pure and has no aspect of impurity. However, the soul is the cause of impurity because all other living creatures that do not have a rational soul but only a life force — their death is merely the separation of the four elements, and the Angel of Death is not involved with them at all. Therefore, they do not have severe impurity. But the human soul does not depart except through the Angel of Death, who removes it from there against its will, as our Sages said (Avot 4:29), “Against your will you die.” He [the Angel of Death] comes from the side of impurity and brings impurity upon the body. This excludes the righteous and unique individuals of the generation whose death is by a divine kiss, not through the Angel of Death, and they have no aspect of impurity at all. Therefore, our Sages said (Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1) that on the day Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the priesthood was suspended because the priests did not become impure from him at all.

And it is possible that all who are from the seed of Aaron, holy to God, then their death is by a divine kiss and the impurity departs from them. This sanctity was drawn from Aaron, who is holy to God, to all His descendants, such that none of them has any aspect of impurity. Therefore, a priest is permitted to tend to his relatives — his father, mother, son, daughter, and brother — because they are all from the seed of Aaron, and a priest’s wife is considered as his own body. And even though one who tends to them incurs a seven-day impurity, nevertheless, the impurity is not so great that it would oppose the priest’s holiness, since the essence of the impurity is somewhat lighter. However, a priest should not defile himself for another priest who is not his relative, because the responsibility falls upon the deceased’s relatives. If the priest does not have relatives, it is better that Israelites should tend to him. And if neither are present, then he is considered a met mitzvah [an abandoned corpse], and it is obvious that he is permitted to tend to him, and even for an Israelite is it permitted to do so. But the High Priest is forbidden from tending to all relatives because, due to his great holiness, even a slight impurity defiles him.

“For his kin who is close to him.” The Rabbis said (Yevamot 22b) his kin refers to his wife. This is difficult: Why does it say who is close to him in masculine form? It should have said “who is close to him” in feminine form. And why does it call his wife his kin, and why did it place her before his father and mother? In the simple interpretation, it seems appropriate to explain as concluded (in Yevamot 63a): Rabbi Yossi said to Elijah, “How does a woman help a man?” He replied, “A man brings wheat — does he chew wheat? Flax — does he wear flax? Does she not enlighten his eyes and set him on his feet?” According to this, certainly his wife provides for him, and thus she is his kin, meaning his food that is close to him, because food transforms into the body of the one who is nourished. The meaning of the verse is that he may become impure for the one who nourishes him, because food is close to his essence, adding moisture to replace what was lost from him. Therefore, a man’s wife is considered like his own body, even though she was not created as bone of his bones except at that first instance of creation. Nevertheless, since for generations she enlightens his eyes through her provision and nourishment, it is proper that he should become impure for her. To ensure you don’t mistakenly think that he can become impure for anyone who feeds and supports him, the Torah uses the language of kin [she’ero], which can be interpreted as referring to his wife, as it says She is your father’s kin (Leviticus 18:12). It doesn’t explicitly say “his wife” in order to explain the reason why he may become impure for her.

And as a hint, one can derive a law from here, what our Sages said (Moed Katan 25a) that when a Torah scholar dies, everyone is considered like his relative, and about him it says except for his relative who is close to him. For his relative refers to his sustenance, as our Sages said (Berachot 17a) “The whole world is sustained for the sake of my son Chanina, etc.” And our Sages said (Bava Kamma 60a) “Punishment only comes to the world because of the wicked, but it always begins with the righteous, as it is said If a fire breaks out and finds thorns, and a stack of grain is consumed (Exodus 22:5). The stack of grain has already been consumed, referring to the righteous.” You see that the righteous are called a “stack of grain,” — just as people eat from a stack of grain, so too the entire world is sustained because of the righteous. And the meaning of “already been consumed” is that the Holy One, blessed be He, comes with tactics of war, for it is the way of warriors to first block the city’s springs and burn their grain stores so they will have nothing to sustain themselves with, as Rashi explained regarding the plagues of Pharaoh (Exodus 8:17). Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, does this when Israel does not fulfill His will: He first removes His protection from them and spoils their grain so they will have nothing to eat through his merit, as we explained above in Parshat Vaychi (50:10) regarding the threshing floor of Atad, the matter of thorns and grain. Therefore it says except for his relative who is close to him, hinting at the Torah scholar who sustains him, and everyone is like his relatives, and he takes precedence over one’s father and mother, as our Sages said (Bava Metzia 33a) “Between the lost item of one’s father and the lost item of one’s teacher, the lost item of one’s teacher takes precedence, etc.” And this also applies when the righteous one passed away, and [so did] one’s father or mother. That is why the loss of one’s teacher takes precedence.

To his mother and his father. Because his mother is not from the seed of Aaron except through being considered as one with her husband, therefore the mother is mentioned first as this is more of a novelty. But regarding the High Priest, where it says he shall not defile himself, the father is mentioned first because it is more of a novelty that he does not defile himself for his father who is from the seed of Aaron. And if you wish to interpret this in the manner of “not only this but also that,” we can say it is more reasonable to expect that he would defile himself for his mother, as she suffered greatly for him during pregnancy, childbirth, and raising him, which is not the case with the father. Therefore, these two passages — both the he shall defile himself mentioned here and the he shall not defile himself mentioned regarding the High Priest — follow the pattern of “not only this but also that.” Additionally, his mother’s identity is more certain than his father’s, because perhaps his mother committed adultery with another man and this person is not actually his father. Therefore, both passages follow the pattern of “not only this but also that.” Furthermore, the decomposition of a woman’s body is more difficult to witness than that of a man, therefore the mother is mentioned first to tell you that if both are lying before him, he must attend first to his mother. But regarding the High Priest, where it says he shall not defile himself, the father is mentioned first following the pattern of “not only this but also that,” and this is easily understood.

They shall not make a bald spot on their head. Even though Israelites were also warned about this, nevertheless both [prohibitions] are necessary. For if we were only informed about Israelites, one might think that only [mourning for] the loss of an Israelite for his generation does not make such a significant impression, therefore one should not grieve excessively by making a bald spot for him, because he also does not make such a significant void in the world. But for a priest, who serves our God, who dies, certainly the loss is great for his generation and makes a void in the world — one might think it permissible for his priestly relative to make a bald spot for him, therefore the Torah teaches us [it is not permitted]. And if we were only informed about priests, one might think that because the priest serves our God, certainly after his death he enters the eternal light of life, therefore it is not appropriate to grieve over his death, because it is for his benefit. But for an ordinary Israelite, who is not assured that he will not see the face of Gehenna, one might think it is permissible to grieve for him and make a bald spot on his account, therefore the Torah teaches us [it is not permitted].

And he shall not defile his seed among his people. It is a wonder to me that if above they interpreted among his people as meaning “while the dead person is among his people [and there are others proximate to bury him],” what would they say about among his people stated here? The simple meaning is among his people [indicating] that he disqualifies his seed from being counted among his people, namely the priests, because he disqualifies them from the law of priesthood. But above it is impossible to interpret it this way because then it would imply that a priest may not become impure among his people for a non-relative, but for an Israelite [non-priest] he may become impure — but this would be a logical contradiction [literally: a kal v’chomer, an a fortiori argument]. And one cannot say that the phrase “among his people” was used to make a point, because if so, it should have been omitted entirely, as it already says except for his relative, etc. which already excludes everyone else. Therefore, they had to interpret it as “while the dead person is among his people,” but here [in our verse] it is according to its simple meaning — [disqualifying his seed] from being counted among his people.

A man of your offspring who has a blemish. Here it says in him a blemish [bo mum], but later it reverses and says a blemish in him [mum bo]. And here it says who will have [asher yihyeh], implying the future, and afterward it says any man who has a blemish [asher bo mum], implying the present. And what is the reason given for this matter in that very statement, where it says for any man who has a blemish shall not approach? And what Rashi explains — that it is not proper for him to approach, as in Offer it now to your governor (Malachi 1:8) — is not explicitly stated in the verse.

Therefore I say that the ancients who were experts in the sciences, knew about every blemish that would develop in a person before it happened, due to what sin they saw in him. For example, if they knew that he accepted bribes, they knew that he would eventually become blind. And if they saw in him a haughty walk, they knew that he would eventually suffer a broken leg. The expression of his face testified against him, meaning they recognized from his facial appearance some negative trait within him that would blemish a specific limb, and he would eventually develop a visible defect and should be disqualified from the priesthood based on his eventual outcome. Therefore it says, Any man from your offspring who has in him a blemish, meaning that his facial expression testifies that eventually he will have a blemish, because from his actions it is recognizable that he will eventually develop this blemish. Thus he is disqualified based on his eventual outcome. And it gives a reason for this matter: For any man who has a blemish, etc. — don’t you agree that if the blemish is already present in him, it is certainly inappropriate for him to offer sacrifices, as it says Try offering it to your governor! (Malachi 1:8). Therefore, also one who will have a blemish in the future should be disqualified from the priesthood. For this reason, when giving the reason, it doesn’t use the future tense “will have.” All this refers to someone who wasn’t born with his blemish, since his actions caused the occurrence of the blemish, as through his actions he damaged one of his limbs. That’s why in these two verses it says in him a blemish — his existence preceded the existence of the blemish, because the phrase “in him” refers to the existence of the person who came first, and afterward the blemish developed in him.

And still we have not heard whether if one was born with a blemish, if the blemish disqualifies or not, because there is room to say that perhaps specifically one who has both defects in his soul and in his body should be disqualified from the priesthood and not bring God’s offering. But for one born with a blemish, who has no defect in his soul but only in his body, you might say that it does not disqualify him. Therefore, the Torah teaches below has a blemish in him, he shall not approach to offer the bread of his God, etc. And this refers to one whose blemish preceded his birth into the world. And this is its explanation: Any man of the seed of Aaron the priest who has a blemish in him shall not approach to offer the offerings of the Lord. And although it already mentioned above who has a blemish, nevertheless it only mentioned there the bread of his God. And one might have thought that this only applies to the bread of his God such as meal offerings and the showbread, but that other offerings of the Lord he is permitted to offer. Therefore, the Torah teaches he shall not approach to offer the offerings of the Lord, to equate all offerings regarding one who has a blemish. And one might have thought specifically regarding one who has a blemish, but not regarding one with a blemish [i.e., born with it]. Therefore, the Torah teaches has a blemish in him, he shall not approach to offer the bread of his God. And it mentions the bread of his God not to exclude the offerings, for all offerings have been equated regarding one who in him is blemish, and the same applies to one with a blemish in him. It only mentions the bread of his God because it wants to say afterwards that even the bread of his God, which has extra holiness more than those that go up in flames, nevertheless he is permitted to eat from them, as it immediately says, He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, and all the more so from the offerings. And what it says and of the holy shall he eat, these are the lesser holy sacrifices, because there is room to say that since these are not permitted to a non-priest, like the meal offerings of the most holy things that Moses ate, and so it appears in the Yalkut at the end of Parshat Tzav (8:518). And in this way, we can also explain why regarding animals it sometimes says a blemish in it and sometimes in it a blemish, because all blemishes disqualify an animal, whether it was born with its blemish or whether its blemish developed later.