Sifra 11.0.7

Emor, Section 4

1) (Vayikra 22:1-2) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name, which they make holy to me; I am the L–rd.") "and that they separate themselves ("veyinozru"): "nezirah" connotes separation, as it is written (Ezekiel 14:7) "who separates himself ("veyinazer") from Me and brings up his idols," and (Isaiah 1:4) "They have turned back" ("nazoru acher") (i.e., separated). "from the holy things of the children of Israel": They are liable for piggul [inappropriate intention), nothar (viz. Isaiah 19:6), and uncleanliness in respect to the offerings of the children of Israel, but not in respect to the offerings of gentiles. "the holy things of the children of Israel": This tells me only of the holy things of the children of Israel. Whence do we derive the same for their own holy things? From "which they make holy to Me" — to include all (holy things).

2) Whence is it derived that our verse is speaking of (a Cohein) who has become tamei? "Profanation" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) (in respect to eating terumah). Just as "profanation" there refers to tumah, so, "profanation" here refers to tumah. And just as "profanation" there is punishable by death) at the hands of Heaven), so, "profanation" here is punishable by death. And just as for "profanation" there, there is (no) placation, so, for "profanation" here there is no placation. R. Yehudah says: It is written here "I am the L–rd," and, below, (Vayikra 22 verse 3) "I am the L–rd." Just as there, the context is kareth ("cutting off"), here, too, it is kareth.

3) (Vayikra 22:2) ("Say to them: Throughout your generations, every man who will draw near, or all your seed, to the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd, and his uncleanliness be upon him, then that soul will be cut off from before Me; I am the L–rd.") "Say to them": to those standing at Mount Sinai. "throughout your generations": that it be binding for all generations. If this was stated for the fathers, why was it stated for the sons, and if it was stated for the sons, why was it stated for the fathers? For there are (mitzvoth) which obtain with the fathers, but not with the sons; and with the sons, which do not obtain with the fathers. (For example:) What is stated for the fathers, (who did not enter Eretz Yisrael, (but not for the sons)? (Bamidbar 36:8) "And every daughter who received an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel" (her father having had no son) "to one of the family of the tribe of her father shall she be as a wife, so that the children of Israel will inherit, each, the inheritance of his fathers" in the midst of the children of Israel). (So that the mitzvah of tribal intermarriage applied only to those who left Egypt, but not to their children after them). And there are many mitzvoth that apply to the sons, (who entered Eretz Yisrael, i.e., those mitzvoth contingent upon the land of Eretz Yisrael), which did not apply to the fathers, (who did not enter). So that because there are (mitzvoth obtaining) with the fathers, which do not obtain with the sons, and (mitzvoth obtaining) with the sons, which do not obtain with the fathers, it must be written in respect to the fathers (i.e., "Say to them"), and it must be written in respect to the sons ("throughout your generations").

4) "(every) man": This tells me only of a man. Whence is (the same derived for a woman? From "of all your seed." Whence is (the same derived for all Israelites, (who are not of the seed of Aaron)? From "every man."

5) "every man who will draw near, of all your seed, to the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd, and his uncleanliness be upon him, then that soul will be cut off from before Me": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Bamidbar 7:20) "And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off," I might think that there is kareth liability for tumah only for peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) all of the offerings? From "Say to them: Throughout your generations, every man who will draw near, of all your seed, to the holy things, etc." — But perhaps there should be included only what is similar to peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days. Whence do I derive the same for what is eaten for one day? From "flesh" (i.e., all flesh is implied.) This tells me only (of those offerings) whose remnants are eaten. Whence do I derive the same for (those offerings) whose remnants are not eaten? From "of the sacrifice." This tells me only of (animal) sacrifices. Whence do I derive the same for birds and meal-offerings, which are not types of (animal) sacrifices — to the point of inclusion of the log of oil of the leper? From (Vayikra 22:2) "which they make holy to Me."

6) "then that soul will be cut off": I might think that (he is to be cut off) "from one side to another" (i.e., that he is to be exiled, as Cain was); it is, therefore, written "from before Me; I am the L–rd" — in all places! ("Cutting off," then, must refer to kareth [death].)

7) I might think that tumah liability obtains only where piggul (inappropriate thought) liability obtains. And this, indeed, would follow, viz.: If piggul (transgression), which is subject to a standard (sin-offering) (for unwitting transgression) and which obtains only with one awareness, (at the end, after his having transgressed, his never having been aware that it was piggul before he ate it, [as opposed to tumah, where there is awareness in the beginning, awareness at the end, and non-awareness in the middle]), and where nothing of its class is permitted, (piggul being forbidden even where the entire congregation transgresses, as opposed to tumah, which was forbidden in such an instance) — (If piggul) obtains only with offerings where there are "permitters" (see Chapter 13:5 in Tzav), then tumah transgression, which obtains with two awarenesses, and is subject to a sliding scale (and not a standard) offering, and where something of its class (congregational tumah) is permitted — how much more so should it obtain only where there are "permitters"! Whence, then, (do we derive tumah liability) for the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the libation meal-offering, the meal-offering of Cohanim, and the meal-offering of the anointed (high-priest, where there are no "permitters')? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "to (eat) the holy things which they make holy," to include all.

8) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4) "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters" (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar). "and his uncleanliness is upon him": bodily uncleanliness. I might think the uncleanliness of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to). It is, therefore, written (here) "and his uncleanliness is upon him" (and there, [Bamidbar 19:13] in respect to uncleanliness in entering the sanctuary) "and his uncleanliness is upon him," for an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as there, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, so, here, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, and not uncleanliness of the flesh. Rebbi says: "and his uncleanliness is upon him": Scripture speaks (here) of bodily uncleanliness, and not of uncleanliness of the flesh. R. Chiyya says: The offerings are written in the plural and cleanliness (tumatho) in the singular. How, then, must "tumatho" be understood? As referring to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of the flesh (of the offerings). Others say: Scripture speaks of that from which tumah can depart (i.e., the man), as opposed to the flesh, from which tumah cannot depart.