1) (Vayikra 21:21) ("Every man in whom there is a blemish, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein, shall not come near to offer up the fire-offerings of the L–rd. There is a blemish in him; the bread of his G d he shall not come near to offer up.") This tells me only of these (i.e., the aforementioned blemishes). Whence are the other blemishes derived? From "in whom there is a blemish, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein." (i.e., only those who bear a normal human semblance may serve.) 2) Whence is derived (for inclusion) (one with the skin-coloring of) a Cushite, one who is red-spotted, one who is white-spotted, one who is pole-like in appearance (i.e., unusually long and thin), one who is dwarf-like, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and those with (halachically) clean plague-spots? From "Every man." 3) (For without "every" we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori, (that all of the aforementioned (#2) should be permitted in a Cohein), viz.: If a beast, which is unfit (for consummation) in the instances of "it and its son" (Vayikra 22:28), are treifah (organic defect) and Caesarian section, is kasher in all of the aforementioned instances, 4) then a man (i.e., a Cohein, who is fit (for the sacrificial service) in the instances of he and his son, etc., how much more so should he be kasher in all of the aforementioned instances! It must, therefore, be written "Every man, etc." 5) "There is a blemish in him": to exclude (from disqualification in the instances of) "he and his son," treifah, and Caesarian section. (For without "in him" we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori: (that all of these are forbidden in a Cohein), viz.: If a beast, which is kasher in the instances of Cushite, etc., is unfit in the instances of "it and its son, etc.", then a man (a Cohein), who is unfit in the instances of Cushite, etc., how much more so should he be unfit in the instances of "he and his son, etc."! It must, therefore, be written "There is a blemish in him," to exclude "he and his son, etc." 6) "there is a blemish in him": to exclude (from disqualification) one whose blemish has left him. (The verse is needed, for without it we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori (that this should disqualify him, viz.:) If a beast, which is unfit in the instance of "it and its son, etc.," is kasher in an instance of the blemish leaving it, then a man (a Cohein), who is kasher in the instance of he and his son, etc., should he not be kasher in an instance of the blemish leaving him? 7) (No,) it may be that a beast is kasher in such an instance because he is kasher in the instances of Cushite, etc. Would you say the same for a man (a Cohein), who is not kasher in all of these instances? It must, therefore, be written "there is a blemish in him," to exclude one whose blemish has left him. 8) (Vayikra 21:22) "The bread of his G d, of the holy of holies, and of the holy he may eat.": If "holy of holies" is written, why is "holy" written; and if "holy" is written, why is "holy of holies" written? For if "holy of holies" were written, and not "holy," I would say that he (a Cohein with a blemish) may eat holy of holies, for there is an instance of "holy of holies" (a meal-offering on a small bamah), which is permitted to a non-Cohein; but he may not eat lower-order offerings. It must, therefore, be written "of the holy." And if "holy" were written, and not "holy of holies," I would say that he may eat of the first but not of the second. It must, therefore, be written both "of the holy of holies" and "of the holy." 9) "he may eat": even in the machloketh (the regular allotment of his father's priestly house). (For if it were not written "he may eat") we would say:) Does it not follow (that he should not eat in the machloketh), viz.: If tvul yom (A Cohein who immersed in the daytime) and one lacking atonement, who are fit for the (sacrificial) service of the next day, may not eat in the machloketh, then a blemished Cohein, who is not fit for the service of the next day — how much more so may he not eat in the machloketh! It must, therefore, be written "he may eat" — even in the machloketh. 10) (Vayikra 21:23) ("But to the veil he shall not come, and to the altar he shall not come near, for a blemish is in him; and he shall not profane My holy things, for I am the L–rd who sanctifies them.") If "to the veil" is written, why "to the altar"? And if "to the altar" is written, why "to the veil"? For if it were written "to the veil" and not "to the altar," I would say that he should be unfit for (entry to) the veil, which is within (the sanctuary), but not for the altar, which is not within. It must, therefore, be written "to the altar." And if it were written "to the altar," but not "to the veil," I would say that he is unfit for the altar, which is kasher for the (sacrificial) service, but not for the veil, which is not fit for the service, (but only for the sprinkling of the blood. It must, therefore, be written (both) "to the altar" and "to the veil." 11) I might think that he (a blemished Cohein) could not enter (between the hall and the altar) to do repair work; it is, therefore, written "But (to the veil he shall not come"), ("But" connoting limitation of exclusion. This is the mitzvah (for entry): Cohanim enter. If there are no Cohanim, Levites enter. If there are no (ritually) clean ones, unclean ones enter. If there are no unblemished ones, blemished ones enter. And whence is it derived that if he (a blemished Cohein) performed his (sacrificial) service, it is invalid? From "and he shall not profane My holy things." And whence is it derived that a blemished Cohein is liable to the death penalty (for such profanation)? R. Yehudah says: It is written here "profanation," and elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) "profanation." Just as profanation there is punishable by death, here, too. And the sages say: A blemished Cohein is not subject to death, but to (violation of) an exhortation (Vayikra 21:17). 12) (Vayikra 21:24) "And Moses spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel": He exhorted Aaron ( in respect to blemishes) by way of the sons, and the sons by way of Aaron, and the sons by each other (i.e., by mutual surveillance), and the (beth-din of the) Israelites over them (the Cohanim).
Sifra Emor Chapter 3
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.