Sifra 11.0.1

Emor, Section 1

1) (Vayikra 21:1) ("And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron, and you shall say to them: For a dead body he shall not become tamei among his people." The sons of Aaron may not become tamei for a dead body; the daughters of Aaron may become tamei for a dead body. "the sons of Aaron": I might think that challalim (those of imperfect priestly status, are also included in the interdict); it is, therefore, written "Cohanim" — to exclude challalim. And whence is it derived that those with blemishes are included? From "the sons of Aaron." "the sons of Aaron": even the minors.

2) "and you shall say to them: For a dead body (nefesh) he may not become tamei among his people.": This tells me only of the dead body. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the blood? It is, therefore, written "for a nefesh," and elsewhere (Devarim 12:23) it is written "for the blood is the nefesh."

3) Whence is derived for inclusion all the tumah segments that separate from the body? From "and you shall say to them" — to include these. "For a dead body he shall not become tamei among his people": When his people are there [i.e., when there are non-priests who can tend to the body, he is not to become tamei, but he is to become tamei for a meth mitzvah (a body which has no one to tend to it.)

4) (Vayikra 21:2) ("Only for his flesh that is near to him, his mother and his father, his son and his daughter and his brother.") "Only for his flesh that is near to him": "flesh" is his wife, viz. (Vayikra 18:12) "She is the flesh (i.e., the wife) of your father." "that is ner": to exclude one that was betrothed to him. "to him": to exclude one that he divorced. Let it be written (only) "to his mother." Why need "to his father" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori), viz.: If he makes himself tamei to his mother, who becomes a challalah (by relations with one who is unfit), how much more so should he make himself tamei to his father, who does not make himself a challal thereby! — If so, I would say: Just as his mother is definitely known (to be his mother), so his father must be definitely known. Whence would I know (that he makes himself tamei for him even when he is known as) his father by common acceptance? It must, therefore, be written "to his father."

5) Or, if it were written "to his father" and not "to his mother," I would say: If he makes himself tamei for his father, who is such only by common acceptance, how much more so does he make himself tamei for her, (who is definitely known to be his mother!) — If so, I would say: Just as his father does not make himself a challal (see above), (then he may make himself tamei) only for his mother who has not become a challalah. Whence would I know that he does so even if she has become a challalah? It must, therefore, be written "to his mother."

6) Let it be written (only) "to his son and to his daughter." Why need "to his mother and to his father" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori), viz. If he makes himself tamei to his son and to his daughter, whom he is not commanded to honor, how much more so should he make himself tamei to his mother and father, whom he is commanded to honor! — If so, I would say (that the verse speaks also of) his aborted son or daughter. It is, therefore, written "to his mother and to his father." Just as his mother and his father were alive, so, his son or daughter (must have been) alive — to exclude his aborted son or daughter, who were not alive.

7) And why are "to his son" and "to his daughter" mentioned (separately)? (i.e., let one be mentioned and I would know the other). Because there obtains with a son what does not obtain with a daughter, and there obtains with a daughter what does not obtain with son. With a son, the father is commanded to perform mitzvoth — to circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade and to get a wife for him, which does not obtain with a daughter. With a daughter, the father has title to what she finds, to the work of her hands, and to the nullification of her vows, which does not obtain with a son. Therefore, both "to his son" and "to his daughter" must be written.

8) Let it be written (only_ "to his brother and to his sister." Why need "to his son and to his daughter" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori) viz.: If he makes himself tamei to his brother and to his sister, in respect to whom he is not commanded to perform mitzvoth, how much more so should he make himself tamei to his son and to his daughter, in respect to whom he is commanded to perform mitzvoth! — If so, I would say that "to his brother" and "to his sister" applies (also) to his maternal brother and sister; it is, therefore, written "to his son and to his daughter. Just as his son and daughter inherit him, so his brother and his sister (to whom he makes himself tamei) inherit him — to exclude his maternal brother and sister, who do not inherit him.

9) Let it be written (only) "to his brother." Why need "to his sister" be written? If it were written "to his brother," and not "to his sister," I would say: Just as (he makes himself tamei) for his brother, whether married or unmarried, so, for his sister, whether a virgin or not; it is, therefore, written "and for his sister, the virgin," and not one who is not a virgin.

10) If it were written "for his sister," and not "for his brother," I would say: Just as his sister, who has not had intercourse, so, his brother who is unmarred; it is, therefore, written "for his brother," whether married or unmarried.

11) (Vayikra 21:3) ("And for his sister, the virgin, who is near to him, who was not wed to a man — for her shall he make himself tamei.") "and for his sister, the virgin": to exclude one who was forced or seduced. I might think that I (also) exclude one whose hymen was accidentally ruptured. It is, therefore, written "who was not wed to a man," (the implication being) one who lost her virginity by being possessed by a man, and not through other causes.

12) "who is near": to include one who was betrothed. "to him": to include a bogereth (one beyond the age of twelve and a half, even if she lost part of her virginal signs in the process of maturing). "for her shall he make himself tamei": It is a mitzvah to do so. If he demurred, we force him to do so. And it happened with Yosef the Cohen, whose wife died on the eve of Pesach, and who did not wish to make himself tamei for her, that the sages pushed him and made him do so perforce.

13) "for him shall he make himself tamei": for (one who is his sister of) a certainty; and he does not make himself tamei for one who is not his sister or a certainty. "for her shall he make himself tamei": and not for others with her, i.e., he should not say: Since I have already made myself tamei (for her), I shall collect the bones of so and so. "for him shall he make himself tamei": but not for her (discrete) limbs, which she lost when she was alive, his being forbidden to do so (even) for the limbs of his father; but he does make himself tamei for a bone the size of a barley-corn of his father.

14) It once happened with Yosef b. Pachsas (a Cohein) that his foot ulcerated and the surgeon wished to amputate it, at which (Yosef) said: "When it is hanging by a thread, let me know." When it reached that point, the surgeon told him and he (Yosef) called to Nechunya his son: "Chunia, my son, until now you were obligated to attend upon me. But now, leave, for the son (of a Cohein) does not make himself tamei for a limb (amputated) from a live father." And when the sages heard about this, they said (on Koheleth 7:15): "The tzaddik has lost, but his righteousness remains with him."

15) (Vayikra 21:4) ("Let a husband not become tamei among his people to become profaned.") "Let a husband not become tamei among his people to become profaned." What is the intent of this? Because it is written that he makes himself tamei for his mother and his father, his son and his daughter, his brother and his sister, whether they are or are not fit (for the priesthood), I might think that he does so also for his wife." It is, therefore, written "Let a husband (who is a Cohein) not become unclean (for his wife." There is a husband who becomes unclean and there is a husband who does not become clean. How so? He makes himself tamei for his wife who is kasher, and does not make himself tamei for his wife who is pasul (i.e., who makes his children challalim, this being the thrust of "to become profaned").

16) "among his people": when they act as his people do, and not when they have strayed from the ways of the congregation. "to become profaned": If he (the strayer) follows this course, he (the Cohein in question) becomes chullin ("mundane," and unfit for the priestly service.) I might think that he remains chullin forever; it is, therefore, written "beamav." As long as he (the strayer in question) is "with it" (imo [i.e., as long as he persists in this course]), then he (the Cohein) is chullin. Once he departs from it, he (the Cohein) reverts to his original sanctity.