Say (אמור), and you shall say. The verse should only have written, “Speak, to the kohanim.” Therefore [the apparent redundancy teaches us that], “speak” is to warn [the adult kohanim] themselves, “and you shall say” is to warn the adults regarding the minors. You might ask why Rashi does not also say this answer [regarding the verse] “Speak (דבר) (to the entire congregation [of] Bnei Yisroel) and say (אמרת) (to them)” in parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:2). The answer is that דבור is a general [command to speak] and does not explain what the statement will be, while אמרת implies something specific, i.e., say this [particular] thing. Here however, where אמור is [already] specific, Rashi is asking why one needs [a command to say] two specific [statements].

The verse says: The kohanim. You might ask, why does Rashi explain the verse in reverse order? He should have first explained “the sons of Aharon” and then [explained] “you shall say to them.” You might also ask, how does he derive all these lessons from “the sons of Aharon”? The answer is that Rashi is explaining as follows: Once I have explained that “you shall say to them” is to “to warn the adults regarding the minors,” why then does the verse need to write “the kohanim, the sons of Aharon”? Without [the first explanation regarding minors] there would be no difficulty as I could say that, if it wrote “the kohanim” and not “the sons of Aharon,” I would think the law only applied to adults and not to minors. Therefore it had to write “the sons of Aharon” in order “to warn the adults regarding the minors.” But now that I derived this from “you shall say to them,” you might ask, why write “the kohanim”? Rashi answers, if it wrote “the sons of Aharon” and not “the kohanim,” I would think even those who are unfit. Therefore the verse says “the kohanim,” i.e., he must be a complete kohein. Rashi then answers another question. How can you explain that “the kohanim” excludes those who are unfit? Perhaps it is needed [for something else], since if it did not write “the kohanim,” but only “the sons of Aharon,” I would think they must be perfect like the sons of Aharon, and it would exclude those who are blemished. Therefore you need “the kohanim” to include the blemished. [To this] Rashi answers that “the sons of Aharon” implies the blemished as well and therefore this would not answer why the verse writes “the kohanim.” Rather, you need it as I answered above, to exclude the unfit. Rashi then answers why the verse writes “the sons of Aharon.” It should only have written “the kohanim” and from that I could exclude the unfit and include the blemished, because both of these [laws] are implied in the word “the kohanim.” He answers that if it did not say “the sons of Aharon,” I would think that even daughters of Aharon are implied in “the kohanim,” because wherever the Torah writes a masculine term, women are also included. Therefore it has to write “the sons of Aharon” and exclude the daughters of Aharon. See Mizrachi who explains in a different way, as follows: You need them both because if it only wrote “the sons of Aharon,” it would imply even the unfit and if so, there would be no exclusionary phrase for the unfit, and they would be included in “sons of Aharon.” [Therefore] it writes “the kohanim” to exclude the unfit. [Rashi] then says, from where do you include even the blemished? Because the verse says “the sons of Aharon.” I.e., there is no exclusionary phrase to exclude them as “the kohanim” came to exclude the unfit, and therefore “the sons of Aharon” implies that even the blemished [should be included]. Thus we are left with a situation where “the sons of Aharon” includes the blemished and [the Torah writes the phrase] to exclude the daughters of Aharon. Whereas if it were only written “the kohanim” one would have thought that women kohanim are included because men and women are [generally] treated the same regarding all the punishments of the Torah. You cannot say the other way round, which would be stringent [as follows]: “’The kohanim.’ You might think, but not the unfit, so the verse says ’the son of Aharon,’ and even the unfit are included in the sons of Aharon.” Because if so, for what would you use the exclusionary expression “the kohanim.”

Among his people. Because if not so, why say “among his people?” Therefore, it is saying [that this law only applies] when the deceased is among his people and there are many people involved in his burial.

Excluding a mes mitzvoh. I.e., [when] there is no one to bury [the deceased], he is permitted to become defiled and bury the deceased. A mes mitzvoh is every case where one [the finder of the body] calls [for help] and no one responds. (Gur Aryeh) Re’em raises a difficulty: Why do we need a verse to permit mes mitzvoh? Why not derive this from the Kohein Godol and nazir who may defile themselves for a mes mitzvoh even though they may not defile themselves for their relatives. How much more so should a regular kohein who does defile himself for his relatives be permitted to defile himself for a mes mitzvoh. Should his being a regular kohein make the law more stringent for him than that of a Kohein Godol? It seems that if not for [this] verse, I would think that the verse “he shall not become [ritually] impure” [said of the Kohein Godol] means that he may not defile himself for no purpose, [and is] not [speaking about] for the sake of a mitzvah. But to deal with a corpse in order to bury it, where there is a mitzvah, he is permitted, and it is only forbidden when not for the purpose of a mitzvah. Therefore the Torah writes regarding the regular kohein that whenever the dead body is “among his people” he may not defile himself, and if so, the leniency of the Kohein Godol [too] is [only in] a case of mes mitzvoh that has no one to bury the deceased. But if there are people available to bury the deceased, he is forbidden to become defiled for it even though he would be performing a mitzvah [by doing so].

“His kin” [refers] to none other than his wife. I.e., “his kin” that is written here, (see Tosefos Yom Tov in Bava Basra chapter Yeish Nochalin [Mishnah 1]. You might ask that it should have written הקרובה (to whom he is closely related) in the feminine form? The answer is that wherever it is written שאר (kin) it means שאר בשר (blood kin) and thus it is as if the verse had written שאר בשר. And since בשר is masculine, it writes the masculine form הקרוב. (Divrei Dovid) You might ask that if so, it should have said “and for his mother” with a vav, since שארו refers to something else. It seems that שארו actually refers to his mother and his father mentioned afterwards as they are his close relatives and his flesh. However, since one could ask [that if so], why does the Torah writes שארו, since afterwards it explicitly says to whom he may become defiled. To answer this they said that it includes his wife, because besides his wife there is no close relative of his [not already mentioned]. We need to find a reason why, in truth, the Torah does not mention the wife separately as it mentions his mother and father. It seems that we learn from this that regarding his wife too, there is a distinction [to teach us] that he does not defile himself for his betrothed. This is what the Torah is saying: he defiles himself for his wife whose marital status is similar to that of his mother and his father, but for his betrothed he is forbidden to defile himself. (The Pa’anei’ach Raza writes) that here it says “for his mother and his father,” and regarding the Kohein Godol it says “for his father and his mother,” because in both cases it goes from the obvious to the less obvious. Here, regarding the regular kohein who defiles himself for them, it says that not only for his mother who is certainly [his mother] does he obviously defile himself, but even for his father who is in doubt [as maybe his mother conceived from someone else] he defiles himself. And regarding the Kohein Godol who does not defile himself, it says that not only for his father does he obviously not defile himself, but even for his mother he should not defile himself. (Divrei Dovid)

The betrothed. You might ask, why not say the opposite, that it comes to exclude the betrothed, that he may not become defiled for her? The answer is that if so, the verse need not have written “closely related,” and I would still know that the betrothed is excluded because it says “who has not yet been married” (לא היתה), since “married” (הויה) generally means betrothal. Perforce, “closely related” is coming to include, that he may become defiled for her. And [therefore], “who has not yet been married” must mean “consummated,” as Rashi explains nearby. You might ask: why say that [“closely related”] come to include “the betrothed”? Perhaps “closely related” comes to include “someone [whose signs of virginity were] struck by a stick,” so that you do not exclude “someone struck by a stick” because of the verse “virgin” which [seems to] exclude a non-virgin; and “who has not yet been married” [actually] comes to exclude the betrothed? The answer is that if so, the verse should have written neither “virgin” nor “closely related,” and I would have known that he is permitted to defile himself for “someone struck by a stick.” Therefore we must say that “closely related” comes to include the betrothed, and “who was not married” means “consummation,” and “struck by a stick” is automatically included since she became a nonvirgin without consummation. Do not ask that the verse should write neither “virgin” nor “who was married to a man,” because in that case I would have said that “closely related” comes to exclude the betrothed. Therefore it has to write “who was not married to a man, [which], as Rashi explains above [means that the marriage was consummated], and automatically we also include “struck by a stick.” (Gur Aryeh and Divrei Dovid) You might ask, why is [the phrase] “closely related” [written in the verse dealing with] his sister different such that we expound from it, “to include the betrothed,” whereas regarding “his kin to whom he is closely related” we exclude the betrothed? The Yerushalmi explains that regarding his [the kohein’s] betrothed, so long as she has not had nisu’in she remains in the house of her father and brothers, and therefore we [expound to] exclude her. But regarding his sister, she is [regarded] his close relative until the nisu’in [as] she is in the home of her brothers. Therefore, we expound to include [her].

[It is] a [positive] command. Because before it is written, “Let him not defile himself with the dead among his people. Except to his kin ... for his virgin sister...” This implies that he may defile himself for everyone mentioned. If so, why also write, “For her, he may be defiled”? Therefore, it must be to add a positive command.

For a deceased person. As Rashi proves from a gezeroh shovoh.

So too further on the entire head. You might ask, perhaps [we should say] the opposite? Just as later [it says] specifically between the eyes, so too regarding kohanim it means specifically between the eyes and not the whole head? The answer is that one cannot learn kohanim from Israelites in this manner, because the verse here explicitly writes “on their heads,” which implies the entire head. Do not ask that now, how can you learn that regarding Israelites too it means the entire head if the verse writes “between your eyes”? The answer is that it certainly means the entire head, and it only writes “between your eyes” for the purpose of another gezeroh shovoh, so that we can learn tefillin from it, as it is written, “They will be totafos between your eyes,” so that you do not say it means literally between your eyes. So [to avoid this mistake] we learn a gezeroh shovoh. It is written here [regarding tefillin], “between your eyes,” and later it is written, “You shall not make any baldness between your eyes.” Just as later it refers to a place where one makes baldness, so regarding tefillin it is a place where one makes baldness. Do not ask, how could we think [in our first question] that we should learn kohanim from Israelites that [the prohibition of kohanim] is specifically between their eyes? If so, why would I need the verse “They shall not make baldness”? Are they not [included in the prohibition of] Israelites? The answer is that you would use [our verse] in order to learn from it that if one made many bald patches at once he is liable for each [instance of making a] bald patch. With all this we have answered the question of Re’m. He asks, how the sages could expound: Since it says, “You shall not make any baldness between your eyes,” I would think the prohibition is only between your eyes. From where do we include the entire head? Because the verse says, “On their heads.” [Regarding this Re’m asks]: But it is written, “Between your eyes,” And if the verse “on their heads” comes to include the entire head,” why do we explain the verse “between your eyes” [which implies only part of the head]? On the contrary, the sages should expound the opposite, that because it says, “They shall not make baldness on their heads,” I would say it means the entire head. And therefore the verse says “between your eyes” [to tell you], I only said between your eyes! And now you could not object, that it is written “on their head,” because between the eyes is also on their heads, because even part of the heads is called “their heads.” And the reason it writes it again regarding kohanim is only because of the superfluous [word] קרחה written there, to make one liable for every bald patch, etc. Re’m left this unanswered; analyze this.

Perhaps for plucking with tweezers. I.e., they should be liable for this as well. [In conclusion] we derive Israelites from Kohanim to whom the Torah gave more mitzvos, and even so, they [kohanim] are not liable except for shaving. How much more so an Israelite.

To make him liable for each and every gash. And we learn Israelites from kohanim with a gezeroh shovoh. But you cannot say that we learn Israelites from kohanim through a plain comparison that they are liable for every gash, because you could disprove it, since what [makes kohanim liable for every gash]? [The fact] that the Torah added many mitzvos for them. Therefore we need the gezeroh shovoh. Even though Rashi does not mention this [gezeroh shovoh], this is because he relied on his writing the gezeroh shovoh of “baldness, baldness” [earlier], and he did not want to be lengthy.

The court shall sanctify them against their will. [Re’m explains]: Because it is not written “They (are) holy” (קדושים הם), but rather, “They shall be holy” (קדושים יהיו), which indicates [even] against their will. The explanation of his explanation is: יהיו is in the third person, speaking of the kohanim to the beis din. Even though the verse could not say “you shall be” (תהיו) in the second person because the whole subject is said in the third person, “They shall not make baldness,” “They shall not shave,” etc., nevertheless, it could have said “They (are) holy” (קדושים הם). This is easy to understand (R. Yaakov Taryosh) Even though above (Vayikra 19:2) it says [regarding the Bnei Yisroel], “You shall be holy” (קדושים תהיו), and there it is not mentioned that this is against their will? The answer seems to be: Above, it first said “You shall be holy” and afterwards explained how they should be holy, by restricting themselves from wives who are forbidden to them. Here, however, it first commanded the kohanim about what is forbidden, such as defilement of the dead; if so, what is it adding when it says “They shall be holy,” since “They shall be holy” cannot be an explanation of what came before it [as it adds nothing]. Therefore, Rashi answers that it is an additional command to the beis din, in addition to commanding [the kohanim] themselves regarding this. (Divrei Dovid)

Because she had sexual relations in one of the marriages forbidden to a kohein. For example, a widow [who was married] to a Kohein Godol, or a chalutzah to a regular kohein, who becomes profaned from the kehunah. She is called profaned even though she was already forbidden to a kohein, [since] there is a difference. If a kohein had relations with her afterwards, he will be liable for two negative commands, one because of [her being] a widow and a chalutzah, and one because of [her being] profane.

Against his will. You might ask: Above too in v. 6 it is written “They shall be holy,” [and Rashi explained], “Against their will”? The answer is that above it is saying that regarding the prohibition against become defiled by the dead, the beis din are obligated to separate him against his will. But here it is discussing an invalid woman, and therefore Rashi says here, “For if he does not wish to divorce, beat him...” Even though it already mentioned that the beis din [forces him to be] sanctified him [even] against his will, it seems that the verse says this again so that you do not say that only when he wants to defile himself does the beis din force him to not defile himself, since he is [still] pure. But if he married a woman forbidden to him, I might think that since he is already profaned and considered like a non-kohein, we should leave him thus [with her]. So it tells us that the beis din is commanded [to see to it] that he must specifically divorce her. (Divrei Dovid)

When she becomes profaned through fornication. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that she is only burnt if she “began (תחל) to fornicate” [and was caught immediately]. But if she had already begun to fornicate and no one knew, and the matter only became known later, she is not burnt. But this is not logical! Therefore Rashi explains: “When she becomes profaned through fornication,” and informs us that the word תחל means “profanity” and not “beginning.”

Marital tie (זיקת**) with a husband.** זיקת is an expression of tying. The Targum Yonasan translates (Yeshayahu 60:11) ומלכיהם נהוגים , “And their kings tied up,” as ומלכיהם זקוקין.

It shall not grow wild in mourning. As we learn from the sons of Aharon where it is written (Vayikra 10:6), “Do not let your hair grow long (תפרעו),” just as over there [it refers to someone] in mourning, so here [it refers to someone] in mourning. And what is [the definition of] growing [hair] wild? [Leaving it uncut for] more than thirty days as we learn from the [laws of] nazir of whom it is written, “He shall let (יהיה) the hair of his head grow long; the gematria of יהיה is thirty.

A tent [which is over a] dead body. I.e., because it is written “he shall not enter,” and entering is not applicable except into something that has an interior.

A quarter of blood. It seems that Rashi infers this from Scripture’s writing “souls” in the plural, and “dead body” in the singular., as iI It should have said either “the soul of a dead body,” or “the souls of dead bodies.” Thus it is saying that one body can impart impurity similar to that of many souls, and this is [through] the quarter [of a לוג] of blood, since each quarter [of a לוג] from a corpse imparts impurity, and one can call it “soul” as the soul rests in a quarter [of a לוג] of a person. And this is easy to understand. (R. Yaakov Taryosh) You might ask: In parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:13) it is also written, במת בנפש, “a corpse,” and Rashi writes, “’Of a [human] soul’ refers to a quarter [of a לוג] of blood.” Why do we need two verses [to teach this lesson]? The answer is: Here it is speaking of a case where it caused impurity in a tent, and there it is speaking of a case where it caused impurity though contact.

To permit him [to become impure] for a meis mitzvoh. Because Scripture has already written, “Adjacent to any dead body he shall not enter,” which must be teaching that he may not become impure even for his father and mother. Because if it meant for other people, this would be obvious as even a regular kohein is prohibited as it is written (verse 1), “Let him not defile himself with the dead.” Therefore, “Adjacent to any dead body he shall not enter,” must be coming to prohibit a corpse [for whom] a regular kohein is permitted [to defile himself], e.g., his father and mother. But if so, why do we need [the verse], “for his father and mother he shall not become [ritually] impure”? We must certainly need it [for the following]: If the Torah did not write “his father and his mother,” we would think that since the verse “Let him not defile himself, etc.,” prohibits the Kohein Godol doing even that which is permitted to the regular kohein, and earlier the Torah permitted [the regular kohein to become impure for] a meis mitzvah and for his father and mother, whereas here regarding the Kohein Godol the Torah forbids everything, we would then think that even for a meis mitzvah it is forbidden for him to become impure. Therefore the verse repeats and writes, “For his father and his mother he shall not become [ritually] impure,” [to teach us that] for his father and mother he may not become impure, but for a meis mitzvah he may become impure. So I found.

May offer [a sacrifice] while he is an onein. Explanation: We derive this from theis verse, “He shall not profane his God’s Sanctuary.” You cannot say we derive this from “He shall not depart (from the Sanctuary),” [because] how could we derive these two teachings from this verse? The teaching that “he does not follow the bier” implies both during the Temple service and not during the service, whereas according to the second teaching, the verse has to be explained [as speaking of] during the service, [whereas not during the service he should follow the bier].

Born of [a marriage] forbidden to the kehunoh. You might ask: Rashi already explained this above (verse 7)? Furthermore, if Rashi wanted also to explain [the verse] here as well, he should have also mentioned the second explanation [of profaned woman as] he explained above, and also explained the word “harlot” written here. The answer is: he has to explain the meaning of “profaned woman” here, since you may have thought the case is specifically that she was invalidated from kehunoh through having sexual relations with one of those people forbidden to kehunoh, i.e., even if the relations were unnatural [and she remained a virgin according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir (see Yevamos 59a)]. But [you may have thought that] a virgin born from someone invalidated from kehunah would not be considered a profane woman, since the verse specifically writes חללה זונה, which implies, a profane woman who is [also] a harlot. [You might think this] because preceding this, the verse wrote אלמנה וגרושה (“a widow and a divorcee), which implies a widow or a divorcee. If so, here [too] it should have written וזונה (and a harlot), which would have implied “or a harlot.” Therefore, because it writes “harlot” without a ו, this implies that she is a profaned woman who is also a harlot. Therefore, Rashi has to explain that [a daughter] “born of [a marriage] forbidden to the kehunoh” is also considered a profaned woman, and that the word “harlot” is not connected with the word “profane woman.” The reason Scripture does not write “and a profaned woman and a harlot,” is because it is normal for verses to write in this way. For example, above (verse 2) [it says], “Except to his kin to whom he is closely related, for his mother and his father,” it should have said “and for his mother.”

Profaned from the status of the holiness of the kehunoh. I.e., his male children are permitted to become impure, to marry a divorcee, and anything similar. (Nachalas Yaakov)

The food. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above in v. 6 where it says, “The bread of their God they bring, and they must be holy?” The answer is that above you could say that when the verse mentions bread, etc., it is referring to the show bread that was in the sanctuary. But here, where it says “shall not approach to offer,” why do we need [the extra word] “to offer?” Thus, it must be dealing with all the offerings offered on the altar, and therefore he has to explain, “Every food [meal]...”

It is not proper that he approach. Because if not so, what reason is the verse giving when it says (verse 17) “Shall not approach... For any man who has a blemish shall not approach.” What is the verse adding with this? Therefore he explains, “It is not proper.” (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

Both his eyes with one stroke. Explanation: his nose is sunk close to his eyes so that when he wants to paint both of his eyes, his nose does not prevent him from painting them both together with one stroke.

Longer. You might ask: This is the same as being lame. The answer is that lameness is when his limbs are like everyone else except that one thigh is shorter, while “disproportionate” is the opposite, all his limbs are like everyone else except that one thigh is longer. The expression of שרוע is similar to, “For the bed is too short to stretch oneself out (מהשתרע)” (Yeshayahu 28:20).

Snake, wart. I.e., he has the form of a snail, or the form of a snake, or something like the pit of a grape in his eyes. Some have the text, “worm, snake, his eyes,” meaning that he has the form of a snail or snake in his eyes. Some say that ענב is an expression of עניבה (coil), because it is the way of the snake to coil itself and עניבה is an expression of coiling. All [the versions] mean the same, [i.e., that he has some kind of a streak in his eye]. מריס פחדין. פחדין means testicles.

מריס פחדין. פחדין means testicles.

To include other blemishes. Because if not so, why does it repeat “Any man who has a blemish” a second time? It is already written above (verse 17), “Anyone of your offspring, through [all] their generations who will have a blemish, etc.”

Every food. You might ask: Rashi already explained this above (verse 17)? Furthermore, here he [only] explains “every food,” while above he [also] explained “the food of his God?” The answer is: Above he is talking about the daily sacrifices that are called bread as it says, “My food [lit. bread] of My fires” (Bamidbar 28:2). But here he is talking about the most holy sacrifices, which one may have thought are not called bread. Therefore, he explains, “Every food is called bread.” [See Re’m]

I would have thought: A blemished person may eat of the most holy sacrifices. (Gur Aryeh) Re’m raises a question regarding Rashi’s statement that the holy sacrifices were permitted to a non-kohein: The Gemara in Perek Tevul Yom (Zevachim 101b) says*,* Moshe, our teacher, was a Kohein Godol and took a portion of the sacrifices of Heaven as it says concerning the ram of inauguration (Vayikra 8:29), “That was the portion of Moshe.” If so, [where is the proof that] it was not permitted to a non-kohein? This is no difficulty, since it is still correct to say that it was permitted to a non-kohein, i.e., to someone whose sons were not kohanim. Also, Moshe was not a kohein regarding everything, as he was not permitted to do service after the Tabernacle was erected, and concerning this he is called a non-kohein.

To sprinkle seven sprinklings. Because if not so, what has he to do with the Curtain that the verse should warn him from entering there.

The outer [one]. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it is the inner altar? The answer is: If it was speaking about the inner altar, there would be no need to write, “He may not enter beyond the Curtain,” because if he is forbidden to approach the inner altar which is outside the Curtain, he would certainly not be permitted to approach the curtain. But if it is speaking of the outer altar, “both had to be written, and [the reason] is explained, etc.”

His service is profaned. I.e., מקדשי of the verse does not mean the actual Temple, but rather His service, because the word מקדש can refer to the actual Temple and also to the service performed in the Temple.

To warn the court. Because if not so, what have Yisroel to do with the warning of the kohanim?