1) (Vayikra 21:5) ("They shall not make a baldness upon their head, and the corners of their beard they shall not shave off, and in their flesh they shall not cut any cutting.") "They shall not make a baldness": I might think that (even) if he made four or five bald spots he would be liable for one alone; it is, therefore, written "a baldness," to stipulate liability for each one individually. 2) "upon their head": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 14:1) "Do not lacerate yourselves and do not make baldness between your eyes for the dead," I might think that only "between the eyes" entails liability. Whence is the head included? From "upon their head," to include (all of) the head. 3) I might think that (only) with Cohanim, to whom Scripture relegated additional mitzvoth, is there liability for each bald spot and for the head as well as between the eyes, but with Israelites, where this does not obtain, there is liability there for one bald spot only, and only for "between the eyes." It is, therefore, written "baldness" (here, in respect to Cohanim). "baldness" (there, in respect to Israelites), to create an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as with Cohanim there is liability for each bald spot and for the head as well as for between the eyes, so, with Israelites. And just as with Israelites liability for (creating) baldness obtains only vis-à-vis the dead, so, with Cohanim. 4) "and in their flesh they shall not cut": If this alone were written I might think that if he made five cuts he is liable only for one; it is, therefore written "any cutting," to impose liability for each cutting. 5) I might think that (only) with Cohanim, to whom Scripture relegated additional mitzvoth, is there liability for each laceration but with Israelites, where this does not obtain, there is liability for one (laceration) only; it is, therefore, written "cutting" (here, in respect to Cohanim) - "cutting" (there [Devarim 19:22] in respect to Israelites), to create an identity, viz.: Just as with Cohanim there is liability for each cutting, so with Israelites. And just as with Israelites liability (for cutting) obtains only vis-à-vis the dead, so, with Cohanim. 6) (Vayikra 21:6) "Holy shall they be to their G d": perforce (i.e., even if they are willing to be unclean) "and they shall not profane the name of their G d; for the fire-offering of the L–rd, the bread of their G d, they offer up — and they shall be holy": This is the cause (i.e., by divesting themselves of the mitzvah of the priesthood, they divest themselves of their holiness.) "they offer up": and not the Levites. "and they shall be holy": to include those with blemishes. 7) (Vayikra 21:7) ("A woman who is a zonah and a challalah they shall not take, and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take; for he is holy to his G d.") "a woman who is a zonah": R. Yehudah says: This is an aylonith (a barren woman [i.e., the term "zonah" also includes an aylonith]). And the sages say: This is a proselytess or a freed maidservant or one whose cohabitation was one of znuth (i.e., illicit). R. Eliezer says: Also (included) is cohabitation of a single man with a single woman not for the sake of marriage. 8) "and a challalah" What is a challalah? A woman that was born of a marriage forbidden (to the priesthood). 9) "a woman divorced": This tells me only of a divorcée. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in unfitness to the priesthood) a chalutzah (a woman "released" from levirate marriage)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a divorcée, who is permitted (for remarriage) to the divorcer, is unfit to the priesthood, then a chalutzah, who is forbidden to revert to the choletz (the man in the chalitzah ceremony) — how much more so, should she be unfit to the priesthood! — (No,) this is refuted by tzarah (the co-wife), who is forbidden to revert to the choletz, yet is permitted to the priesthood. 10) (No,) there is a (crucial) difference (between them), viz.: In the instance of a divorcée the man performs an act (in the woman), and in the instance of chalutzah, the man is involved in an act (with the woman). And this is not to be refuted by tzarah, where he is not involved in an act (with the tzarah). And if you would say that just as "and" a woman" includes a chalutzah" (as forbidden to a Cohein), I should say that tzarah, too, is like a chalutzah and should be forbidden to a Cohein, it is, therefore, written "and a woman divorced from her husband" — where her divorce is in the hands of her husband, and not when it is in the hands of the woman (as in the instance of tzarah). 11) "and a woman divorced from her husband" This was expounded by R. Elazar b. Mattia: If her husband (a Cohein) went abroad and they told her that her husband had died and she were betrothed (to another) and her husband returned — whence is it derived that she may return to the first even if the second gave her a divorce, this divorce not making her unfit to the priesthood? From "and a woman divorced from her husband" (is forbidden to the priesthood), and not (a woman who was given a divorce) by a man who was not her husband. 12) "they shall not take … they shall not take": (twice) We are hereby apprised that the woman is exhorted against this as well as the man. 13) (Vayikra 21:8) ("And you shall make him holy, for he offers up the bread of your G d; holy shall he be unto you, for holy am I the L–rd, who sanctifies you.") And whence is it derived that if he refuses (to divorce her), he is forced to do so? From "And you shall make him holy" — (even) against his will. "for he offers up the bread of your G d": We are hereby apprised of the reason (for his being forced). "holy shall he be unto you": to include blemished Cohanim, (who are forbidden to sacrifice, as being thus exhorted). "for holy am I the L–rd who sanctifies you": to include beth-din as being thus exhorted. 14) (Vayikra 21:9) ("And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profanes herself through fornication, it is her father that she profanes; in fire shall she be burned.") "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profanes": I might think that even if she desecrated the Sabbath she should be subject to burning; it is, therefore, written "if she profanes … through fornication" — when the profanation were that of fornication, and not any other kind. 15) I might think that the penalty was burning even if she were single when she fornicated; it is, therefore, written here "her father," and there (Devarim 22:21, in respect to a betrothed maiden) "her father. Just as there, the reference is to fornication within the context of marital ties, so, here. — But perhaps the thrust of "her father (a Cohein)" is to exclude (from burning a maiden [even a single maiden] who fornicated with her father) — with any man (i.e., with her father who is not a Cohein)! — (This cannot be, for) "she profanes (her father)" implies (that her fornication is with) "any man." (For if it were with her father, then he would be profaning her). How, then, am I to understand "her father"? As "Just as there, the reference is to fornication within the context of marital ties, so, here." 16) — But why not say, then, that just as "her father" there is mentioned within the context of a betrothed maiden [na'arah (between twelve and twelve and a half)] so, too, here, too, the context must be one of a betrothed maiden. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a wedded maiden, a betrothed bogereth (after twelve and a half), a wedded bogereth — even an old woman? From "And the daughter of a Cohein" — in any event. 17) This tells me (of the penalty of burning) of the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Cohein. Whence do I derive the same for the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Levite, the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to an Israelite — even (of the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Nathin or to a mamzer? From "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, even if she herself is not wedded to a Cohein. 18) "she profanes her father": R. Eliezer: When she is with (i.e., in the domain of) her father (i.e., when she is betrothed), the penalty is stoning (the severest of the penalties), and with her in-laws (i.e., when she is wedded), it is burning. "in fire shall she be burned": Her penalty is burning; but the penalty of her consort is not burning, (but strangulation). She shall be burned, but not "scheming witnesses" against her. (Their penalty is strangulation.
Sifra Emor Chapter 1
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.