And Hashem said to Moshe, "Speak to the Kohanim, the sons of Ahron and say to
them 'Let no Kohen defile himself
through contact with a dead body from his nation'" (VaYikra 21:2)
This passage prohibits a Kohen from becoming defiled through
association with a dead body. The only
exceptions are the Kohen's closest relatives. The Kohen
may care for these departed. The pasuk specifies that the Kohen is prohibited from coming into
contact with a dead body from "his nation". What is the meaning of this phrase?
Rashi interprets the phrase to
mean that a Kohen can defile himself
on behalf of a mait mitzvah a
deceased for whom there are no relatives.
The obligation to bury this body supercedes the Kohen's prohibition against defilement. The meaning of the pasuk
is that the Kohen may not defile
himself for a body that is within the nation.
The means that the departed is part of the community and will be cared
for by relatives. But if the body is
outside of the community there are no relatives to care for the body the
Priest must bury the body.[1]
Seforno understand the phrase
differently. The Kohen cannot defile himself on behalf of a deceased from the
general community. However, he does
defile himself to care for the body of a close relative.[2]
One very interesting explanation
of the phrase is quoted by Mishne Le'Melech in the name of Sefer Yerayim. Mishne Le'Melech explains that the passage
specifically excludes the body of an idolater from the prohibition. In other words, the Kohen is not prohibited from contact with the dead body of an
idolater. This, of course, raises a
disturbing question. The Kohen is not permitted to defile
himself. Contact with any dead body
even the cadaver of an idolater results in defilement. Why should the prohibition be limited to
contact with deceased who are not idolaters?
Mishne Le'Melech proposes an
interesting answer to this question. He
explains that there are three basic means through which a dead body transmits
impurity. The first is though physical
contact with the body. If one touches a
dead body the impurity is transmitted.
The second means is through carrying the body. This means transmits the impurity even without direct contact
with the body. The third means is
through occupying the same covered area as the cadaver. In other words, through being under a single
roof the impurity is transmitted from the body to the person.
Only two of these methods apply to
the body of an idolater. This body will
transmit though direct contact and through being carried. However, if one is under the same roof as
the body, impurity is not transmitted.
This suggests that a lesser degree impurity is associated with the body
of the idolater. Mishne Le'Melech proposes that the Kohen is not prohibited from contact with this lesser degree of
impurity.[3]
Mishne Le'Melech's approach does
not seem to completely answer the question.
A problem remains unsolved.
Assume a Kohen touches the
dead body of an idolater. The Kohen will be unclean for seven days.
Purification will require sprinkling with the ashes of a red heifer. These consequences are as same as those that
occur through contact with the dead body of a Jew. Let us accept Mishne Le'Melech's assertion that the dead body of
the idolater does not have the same degree of impurity as the cadaver of a
Jew. Nonetheless, the consequences of
contact are indistinguishable! Why
then, is contact with the idolater's body permitted?
Mishne Le'Melech does not directly
answer this question. However, he does
provide an interesting hint. He
explains that the prohibition against a Kohen
defiling himself has a parallel. The Nazir one who makes a Nazerite vow
is subject to the same prohibition against defilement. In fact, some of the specific parameters of
the Kohen's prohibition are derived
from the laws of the Nazir.[4]
This parallel suggests that there
is a single consideration underlying the prohibitions upon the Nazir and the Kohen. What is this common denominator? Sefer HaChinuch suggests an explanation for the Kohen's prohibition that can easily be
applied to the Nazir as well.
The Chinuch explains that the Kohen is distinguished from the rest of
Bnai Yisrael. The Kohen is expected to live a more spiritual life. He is provided with
material support through the tithes, the sacrifices and special cities set
aside for the Kohanim and Shevet Leyve. These provisions allow the Kohen
to disassociate from the mundane and immerse in the spiritual.
The prohibition against contact
with the dead is designed to communicate a message. The message is transmitted through symbols. In order to understand the prohibition, we
must identify the message and its representation.
Let us begin with the
symbolism. The object of the
prohibition is the deceased. What does
the dead body represent? The human is
composed of a material body and a spiritual soul. In death the soul abandons the body. The dead body is the physical element of the human separated from
the spiritual soul. In life the human
is spiritually clean. With death the
body becomes defiled. There is a clear
message in this transition. The
spiritual soul renders the body sacred.
It elevates the material element.
Without this spiritual element the material shell looses its sanctity
and is reduced to an unclean cadaver.
In short, sanctity is derived from the spiritual. The material body, alone, is mundane and
impure.
Now we can turn to the message of
the prohibition. The restriction
against contact with the dead provides an admonishment to the Kohen and Nazir. These individuals
are required to live on an elevated spiritual plane. The prohibition against defilement reminds them of their
mission. They must concentrate on
spiritual development and not be deceived by the allure of the material
world. The prohibition communicates
this message through symbolically expressing the relative importance of these
elements and commanding the Kohen and
Nazir to distance themselves from the
dead.[5]
Before we can return to the Mishne
Le'Melech's comments, we must consider an additional issue. Why is the idolater's body associated with a
lower degree of impurity? The insight
of the Chinuch provides a response to this question. Defilement represents contrast.
When alive, the human possesses a spiritual element. In death, the body is reduced to a purely
physical level. The lesser degree of
defilement of the idolater extends this symbolism. The idolater failed to adequately develop spiritually. Instead, the idolater brought a material element
into the spiritual world. The reduced
degree of defilement corresponds with the reduced contrast between life and
death.
We can now explain the comments of
Mishne Le'Melech. The prohibition
against the Kohen's contact with the
dead is not dictated by the results of the contact. Contact with the dead body of an idolater has the has the same
consequences as contact with the remains of a Jew. Mishne Le'Melech's position is that the prohibition against
defilement for the Kohen and the Nazir is symbolic of the mission of
these individuals. This symbolism
contrasts the spiritual complete human with the material remnant created by
death. Only those dead that capture the
highest degree of contrast are included in the prohibition. Therefore, idolater's body is not included.
Whether it is a bull, a sheep or a goat, do not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day. (VaYikra 22:28)
This pasuk prohibits the slaughter of a mother and its offspring on a
single day. This prohibition applies to
slaughtering animals for sacrifice and for personal consumption.
Nachmanides relates this
commandment to another mitzvah found
in Sefer Devarim. There, the Torah
commands us to send away the mother bird from her nest before removing the eggs
or offspring. Nachmanides explains that
both commandments share a common dual purpose.
First, these commandments teach us not to be heartless and cruel. Second, these mitzvot remind us that we are permitted to slaughter animals. However, we cannot destroy the species. Slaughtering the mother and child
simultaneously represents disregard for the preservation of the species.
Nachmanides raises an important
question. The Talmud teaches that one
should not declare that the mercy of the Almighty extends even to the bird's
nest.[6] In other words we should not ascribe the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird
to the Almighty's mercy. Nachmanides
analyzes this teaching. What is wrong
with this interpretation of the mitzvah? Why can one not suggest that this is a
possible motivation for the commandment?
Apparently, the lesson is that we should not ascribe reasons to the
commandments. We should regard the mitzvot as decrees from Hashem. We should not attempt to seek rational
explanations for the laws of the Torah!
Nachmanides acknowledges that this interpretation of the Talmud would
render inappropriate his own interpretation of these mitzvot.
Nachmanides explains that he does
not intend to dispute the position of the Talmud. Instead, he explains that the Talmud's admonishment must be more
carefully considered. He asserts that
the Sages never intended to discourage interpretation of the commandments. According to the Sages, King Shlomo
interpreted virtually all of the mitzvot.[7] There is no indication that he acted
improperly. The Sages were explaining
that a specific type of interpretation is inappropriate.
Nachmanides explains that all mitzvot are given to benefit
humanity. Mitzvot do not benefit the Almighty. Hashem is perfect and complete.
He is does not derive any benefit from our performance of the mitzvot. Neither is He harmed by our transgression. Therefore, we cannot assert that Hashem's
mercy extends to the bird's nest. Such
an assertion would result in a series of false conclusions. First, it would imply that the Almighty
feels mercy for the bird. Second, in
order to respond to this feeling He commands us to send away the mother. Third, the Almighty's sense of mercy will be
frustrated by our neglect of the commandment.
All of these implications are false.
Instead, these mitzvot are designed to make us better
individuals. We learn mercy and
compassion from the commandments.
Similarly we acquire other positive traits through the observance of the
other mitzvot.[8]
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer VaYikra 21:1.
[2] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer VaYikra 21:1.
[3] Rav Yehudah Rosanes, Mishne Le'Melech, Hilchot Avel, 3:1.
[4] Rav Yehudah Rosanes, Mishne Le'Melech, Hilchot Avel, 3:1.
[5] Rav Ahron HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 263.
[6] Mesechet Berachot 33b.
[7] Midrash Rabba, Sefer BeMidbar 19:3.
[8] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 22:6.