Torah Study Emor 5785

Vayikra 21:1-24:23, Yechezk’el 44:15-31, Mattityahu 26:59-66

Torah Portion Vayikra 21:1-24:23

Leviticus 21:1–4 “Adonai said to Moshe, “Speak to the cohanim, the sons of Aharon; tell them: ‘No cohen is to make himself unclean for any of his people who dies, except for his close relatives—his mother, father, son, daughter and brother; he may also make himself unclean for his virgin sister who has never married and is therefore dependent on him. He may not make himself unclean, because he is a leader among his people; doing so would profane him.”

1. What does is the significance of “Speak to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron,...” indicate here?#1

This choice of words indicates that not just the Kohanim, which we already have established a definition of, is addressed here but also Aaron’s male descendants that would not be qualified as Kohanim must abide by these mitzvah.

RASHI Speak to the priests. But not to the “sons of Aaron” who do not have priestly status. The sons of Aaron. Not the daughters, but the sons. Nonetheless, any son of Aaron who is a priest is included, even if disqualified from serving by a physical defect. Say to them. “Speak” to the adults and make sure that they “say” to their children. None shall defile himself for any dead person among his kin. But for a dead person who is not “among his kin”—if there are no other Jews who can see to the burial—he may do so. RASHBAM None shall defile himself for any dead person among his kin. The sense is more precisely, “None among his kin, his fellow priests, shall defile himself for any dead person.” (The same sense applies to “a virgin of his own kin” in v. 14.) The verse says “among” his kin, not “for” his kin. Contrast “Even if his father or mother, or his brother or sister should die, he must not defile himself for them” (Num. 6:7)—not “among” them as in our verse. IBN EZRA Speak to the priests … and say to them. Literally, “Say to the priests … and say to them.” After having warned both the priests and the ordinary Israelites that they must be holy, Moses goes on to warn the priests specifically that there are still other things they must keep away from, because they are in the service of the Lord. Or it may be that the first “say” refers to Moses telling the preceding chapters to the priests (who were supposed to preserve God’s teaching for the people) and the second “say” means that he was to explain to them the reasons for the commandments that they alone were to follow. None shall defile himself. The verb is a Hitpael; the ת assimilates to ט of the root, causing it to be doubled with a dagesh. For any dead person. The Hebrew merely says “for any person,” but the translations interpret this correctly as referring to a dead person. Among his kin. Rather, “among his people,” all of Israel. NAHMANIDES Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them. The English conceals a difficulty in the Hebrew. It is more literally translated, “Say to the priests … and say to them.” Rashi’s explanation, taken from rabbinic literature, is to be understood as follows: We must certainly not do anything that would cause children to become ritually impure. But we learn from many commandments in the Torah (as interpreted by our Sages) that, though we should not assist children to come in contact with anything forbidden by the Torah, if they do so of their own accord we need not stop them. In our verse, the repetition of “say” (following this interpretation) would be to tell the priests that not only must they avoid impurity, but they must tell their children to avoid it also. Ibn Ezra’s explanation, that the priests were to “say” the preceding rules to the Israelites and the following ones to themselves alone, is simply incorrect. In my opinion, the English translations are correct in making the first “say” into “speak.” The Hebrew roots can be used interchangeably: “Moses spoke to Aaron and to his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, ‘Take the meal offering that is left over’ ” (10:12); “Go to Pharaoh and speak to him, ‘Thus says the Lord’ ” (Exod. 9:1). Moreover, there are many examples of repetition like that of our verse: “Speak to the Israelites and say to them.” The redundancy of “speak and say” is for emphasis, either because the commandment is particularly important or because the people were in the habit of violating it. The same applies here, with “say and say” (see also Jer. 34:2). The emphasis derives from the essential meaning of the expression: speak to them in My name and say to them. Many people would say that (both in the regular expression and here) the first verb is a summons: “Call them and say to them.” The priests, the sons of Aaron. Note that the instructions about the sacrifices are given “to Aaron and his sons” (e.g., 6:18), not to “the priests.” The rules given here, however, apply permanently, even when they are not coming to serve in the Temple; they apply to the priests themselves. Since they are “Priests of the Lord and … servants of our God” (Isa. 61:6), they must act respectably and as distinguished persons would do, and never allow themselves to become unclean. Notice that this rule does not apply to those who have disqualified themselves from priestly status through an improper marriage, nor to the children of such a marriage. None shall defile himself. The switch to the singular here may imply what the translations say, or they may mean that the “kinsman” of v. 4 (but see my comment there) should not defile himself. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Speak to the priests. In 20:24, God explains that the Israelites are “set apart” from the other peoples; now the priests are set apart from the ordinary Israelites (Bekhor Shor). This section was said on the day the Tabernacle was set up, at which time the priests were obliged to begin their service. It is juxtaposed to 20:27, “A man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death,” because Jews have no need of spirits—if you must ask, “speak to the priests” and they will inquire of the Urim and Thummim for you (Hizkuni). “Speak to the priests” to summon them, “and say” to the ordinary priests the rules that apply to them; the specific rules for the High Priest come later. But I prefer to explain it as repetition. People are very upset when their relatives die, so the priests must be told over and over again not to mourn for them (Abarbanel). None shall defile himself for any dead person among his kin. This tells us that corpse uncleanness is not operative among gentiles, and that the priests are to loathe materiality except when it provides some benefit to the human essence (Gersonides). Rather, “none shall defile himself among his kin with regard to his soul”; compare Deut 4:15. The continued contact of the spiritual soul with the dead material body is a source of uncleanness (Abarbanel). He shall not defile himself for anyone among “his people,” the mass of Jews, except for close relatives (Sforno). Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 165.

2. The sages teach that verse 21:2 allows for the Kohnaim to attend his wife’s funeral. Where in verse 2 is it stated?#2

RASHI Except for the relatives that are closest to him. Rather, “except for the flesh that is closest to him”—his wife. IBN EZRA Except for the relatives that are closest to him. More precisely, “except for his flesh that is close to him.” It would seem to us that (as in 18:6) this is a general term for one’s relations, which are then specified: mother, father, and so forth. (His mother is mentioned first because ordinarily males live longer than females.) But our Sages transmitted the tradition that a priest defiles himself for his wife as well, and they explain “his flesh” as “his wife,” as a mnemonic for this tradition. On this sort of mnemonic, see my comment to Exod. 21:8 on the word “outsiders.” ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The relatives that are closest to him. Literally, the “flesh” that is closest to him. According to Gen 2:24, “a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh” (Bekhor Shor).

Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 165.

The Hebrew word שְׁאֵר šeʾēr body, flesh and it can be generally used as close relative or closest relative. Genesis 2:24 “This is why a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife; and they become one flesh.”

Leviticus 21:13–15 ““ ‘He is to marry a virgin; he may not marry a widow, divorcee, profaned woman or prostitute; but he must marry a virgin from among his own people and not disqualify his descendants among his people; because I am Adonai, who makes him holy.’ ””

3. What are the restrictions for a Kohen in regards to who could be his wife?# 3

virgin, never married, never a harlot, his own people, and he must have a wife and only a single wife

IBN EZRA Who is a virgin. Rather, who is “in her virginity” (OJPS). Like a number of other Hebrew words naming abstract terms, this word only and always appears in the plural. (There are likewise a number of Hebrew words that only appear in the singular, and never in the plural.) NAHMANIDES He may marry only a woman who is a virgin. “Only” is not in the Hebrew (see OJPS), but that is the sense. This is essentially the prohibition of v. 14, stated in positive terms. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS He may marry only a woman who is a virgin. And only “a” woman, not two or more; his intense holiness precludes him from overindulgence in sex (Gersonides). Leviticus 21:14 RASHI One who is degraded. By having been born of a marriage forbidden to a priest. IBN EZRA A widow, or a divorced woman. Whether she is widowed or divorced from an ordinary Israelite or a priest. One who is degraded by harlotry. Rather, “a profaned woman, or a harlot” (OJPS). Compare “Sun and moon stand still on high” (Hab. 3:11), where (as in our verse) the conjunction is simply missing in the Hebrew. Only a virgin of his own kin. The repetition of the requirement that she be a virgin is made to emphasize that she must allllso be “of his own people” (as OJPS more correctly translates). A virgin who was captured in war, or who converted to Judaism, is forbidden to him. NAHMANIDES Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife. This is the explicit commandment that he must, indeed, marry. As the Sages have framed it, “He mustn’t marry a widow; he must marry a virgin.” Leviticus 21:15 RASHI That he may not profane his offspring. If he were to marry one of the women forbidden to him, his offspring from her are “profane”—they do not have the status of “priest” and are not bound by the rules that preserve priestly sanctity. IBN EZRA That he may not profane his offspring. Rather, “And he shall not profane his seed” (OJPS)—by having a secret relationship with a widow or a divorced woman or any of the other women whom v. 14 forbids him to marry publicly. NAHMANIDES That he may not profane his offspring among his kin. NJPS follows Rashi’s explanation of the Hebrew as a description of the negative consequences of his marrying a woman forbidden to him. But OJPS follows the rabbinic explanation—this is a second prohibition: “He shall not profane his seed among his people.” As the Sages said, if he consummates the marriage, he is whipped twice: once for violating “such he may not marry” (v. 14) and once for violating “he shall not profane.” (He is also whipped for violating “he shall not profane” if he has intercourse with her even though he did not marry her.) They are therefore two separate prohibitions. They also explain that if he marries her without consummating the relationship, he is not whipped at all. For why is he forbidden to marry her? To avoid profaning his offspring. The text, then, says that he must marry a virgin in order to avoid profaning his offspring; we ourselves make the logical connection that his children by the women prohibited in v. 14 are “profaned.” Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 169.

Leviticus 21:16–21 “Adonai said to Moshe, “Tell Aharon, ‘None of your descendants who has a defect may approach to offer the bread of his God. No one with a defect may approach—no one blind, lame, with a mutilated face or a limb too long, a broken foot or a broken arm, a hunched back, stunted growth, a cataract in his eye, festering or running sores, or damaged testicles—no one descended from Aharon the cohen who has such a defect may approach to present the offerings for Adonai made by fire; he has a defect and is not to approach to offer the bread of his God.”

4. Why must the priest with a “defect” be disqualified no less than four times, in vv. 17, 18, and twice in v. 21?

These are not an exhaustive list, it is examples of things to look for.

5. Is the exclusion of Gentiles, woman, and people with defects from the priesthood and/or from marrying in to the priesthood discriminatory?

Yes, Also discriminates from other Jews.

Leviticus 22:10–11 ““ ‘No one who is not a cohen may eat anything holy, nor may a tenant or employee of a cohen eat anything holy. But if a cohen acquires a slave, either through purchase or through his being born in his household, he may share his food.”

6. Why is the slave of the cohen allowed to eat of the Holy offering but the layman, hired servant and foreigner is not?# 4

He is the property of the cohen and thus a part of his household.

RASHI No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. Again, the text merely says that he shall not eat “a holy thing,” but (as NJPS recognizes) in context this clearly refers to the “sacred donations.” No bound or hired laborer. A “bound” laborer is a slave who has refused his freedom at the end of six years and is therefore bound to his master until the jubilee year. A “hired” laborer is one who is indentured to him for a period of years (a maximum of six). The text therefore teaches you that in either case the master acquires the rights to the man’s work, but not to his body—for the slave is not entitled to eat from his master’s share of the sacred donations. RASHBAM No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. See my grandfather’s comment. IBN EZRA No lay person. No one who is not of the offspring of Aaron. Leviticus 22:11 RASHI But a person who is a priest’s property by purchase may eat of them. This refers to a “Canaanite” (that is, non-Jewish) slave, whose body does belong to his master. Those that are born into his household. The children of his female slaves. The rule that a priest’s wife may eat of the sacred donations is also derived from this verse, since she too is his “property by purchase” in the sense that he gives her a financial consideration as part of the marriage ceremony. But (as is explained in Sifrei Numbers) it is also derived from a second verse, “everyone of your household who is clean may eat it” (Num. 18:11). IBN EZRA Those that are born into his household. Male or female, despite the grammatically masculine forms. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS A person who is a priest’s property by purchase may eat of them. Even an animal that is his property may eat of them. This clearly demonstrates that the fact that a non-Jewish slave may eat of the sacred donations says nothing about his status. Au contraire—he can eat because he is the priest’s property, unlike a Jewish slave, who is merely bound to service (Gersonides). Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 173–174.

Leviticus 24:10-16 Details an episode of the son of an Israelite woman and Egyptian man. What is going on here? Midrash

Haftarah portion Ezekiel 44:15-31

Ezekiel, proclaiming the laws of the Zadokite priests, functions as a new Moses. In the parashah, Moses proclaims the laws of the Aaronid priests. In both cases, the priests are sanctified—separated from the rest of the people—which is a privilege and a sacrifice, an honor and a responsibility. Laura Suzanne Lieber, Study Guide to the JPS Bible Commentary: Haftarot, ed. Janet L. Liss and David E. S. Stein, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 52–53.

Ezekiel 44:9–13 “Here is what Adonai Elohim says: ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in both heart and flesh, is to enter my sanctuary—no foreigner living among the people of Isra’el. “ ‘Rather, the L’vi’im, who went far away from me when Isra’el went astray, going astray after their idols—they will bear the consequences of their guilt, but they are to serve in my sanctuary. They will have charge of the gates of the house and of serving in the house; they will slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people; and they will attend and serve them. Because they served them in the presence of their idols and became an occasion of sin for the house of Isra’el, I am raising my hand against them,’ says Adonai Elohim, ‘and they will bear the consequences of their guilt. They will not approach me to serve me in the office of cohen or approach any of the holy things or the especially holy things; but they will bear their shame for the disgusting practices they committed.”

7. What is the difference between the “foreigner, uncircumcised in both heart and flesh” and the “Foreigner living among the people of Isra’el.”?

The “foreigner, uncircumcised in both heart and flesh” is at best a visitor and at worse an invader. The “Foreigner living among the people of Isra’el.” could be a proselyte, a Noahide, or just an friendly and sympathetic outsider.

Ezekiel 44:14–15 “Yet I will put them in charge of the house and all its maintenance and everything to be done in it. “ ‘However, the cohanim, who are L’vi’im and descendants of Tzadok, who took care of my sanctuary when the people of Isra’el went astray from me—they are the ones who will approach me and serve me; it is they who will attend me and offer me the fat and the blood,’ says Adonai Elohim.”

8. Who is Tzadok? What famous descendant(s) of his do we Know?# 5

• Tzadok (ancestor of Ezra) — A descendant of Tzadok the high priest and ancestor of Ezra.

• Tzadok (father-in-law of Uzziah) — Father-in-law of Uzziah and grandfather of Jotham.

• Tzadok (high priest) — One of the most influential high priests who served during the reign of David. The son of Ahitub.

• Tzadok (ancestor of Yeshua) — An ancestor of Yeshua through Yosef.

Jeremy Thompson, ed., Lists of Biblical People, Places, Things, and Events (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2020).

9. We often say that many of these prophecies such as this one has been fulfilled and yet still have a part to be fulfilled again. Do you think that is true for this one? If so then what could its fulfillment look like?

Ezekiel 44:23–24 ““ ‘They are to teach my people the difference between holy and common and enable them to distinguish between clean and unclean. They are to be judges in controversies, and they are to render decisions in keeping with my rulings. At all my designated festivals they are to keep my laws and regulations, and they are to keep my shabbats holy.”

10. How do you understand “ ‘They are to teach my people the difference between holy and common and enable them to distinguish between clean and unclean.”?

They will teach Israel what is actually good from HaShem and his expectations and how to remain or become clean.

Basorah Portion Matthew 26:59-66

Matthew 26:59 “The head cohanim and the whole Sanhedrin looked for some false evidence against Yeshua, so that they might put him to death.”

11. Why did the ruling kohanim (Sadduccees) and the Sanhedrin try to get FALSE testimony against Yeshua? Why not true testimony?

Yeshua did not do or say anything that could be considered against Torah.

Matthew 26:63 “Yeshua remained silent. The cohen hagadol said to him, “I put you under oath! By the living God, tell us if you are the Mashiach, the Son of God!””

12. The beginning of verse 63 has Yeshua remaining silent. What is the significance of this?# 6

In Israelite culture, especially at that time, it was allowed for a close relative or friend when asked about a charge that was levied against someone else to remain silent and in the process accept the punishment that would be levied on the other person.

13. What is the exact Blasphemy that Yeshua is charged with?

Claiming to be the Mashiach is not Blasphemy, claiming to be able to tear down the temple and rebuild it in 3 days is not blasphemy, Claiming to sit at the Right hand of power or HaShem is not Blasphemy, the disciples argued over it openly in front of Yeshua. In all these cases Yeshua never actually claims to be anything they charge him with claiming to be.

14. Is this a just trial as required by the Pharisees, Jewish tradition, or the Torah?