“And Hashem said to
Moshe, “Speak to the Kohanim – the children of Ahron – and say to them that no
priest should defile himself through contact with the dead from among his
people.” (VaYikra 21:1)
This passage introduces the Torah’s discussion of
various restrictions upon the Kohanim. One of these restrictions regulates the Kohen’s contact with dead bodies. In general, the Kohen is not permitted to defile himself though association with a
dead body. There are exceptions to this
prohibition. The restriction does not
apply to the body of a close relative.
The Kohen is allowed become
defiled through associating with these remains.
Gershonides discusses the defilement associated with
dead bodies. He offers a simple
explanation of this tumah –
defilement. He explains that a human
being consists of a spiritual soul combined with a material body. The soul differentiates the human from other
material creations. This spiritual
element is the distinguishing characteristic of the human being. This element is the source of human
perfection and all virtue. With death,
the spiritual element is separated from the material element. The dead body is the material
remainder. The Torah assigns tumah to the body. This tumah
communicates that the foundation of human perfection and virtue has departed
from the body. The material element,
alone, is meaningless.[1]
As explained above, there are exceptional instances
in which the Kohen may associate
himself with a dead body. In these
cases, the Kohen is permitted to
defile himself. Primarily, these
exceptions allow contact with the body of a close relative. However, there is an additional exception. The Kohen
may associate with a mait mitzvah –
an abandoned body. There are no
relatives to bury this body. The Kohen is permitted to defile himself in
order to assure that the body is properly interred.
This law is derived from a very interesting
source. The Torah commands us to bury
those executed by the courts.[2] Even the bodies of these evil individuals
must be treated with respect and properly interred. It follows that we must treat the dead body of a good person with
the same dignity.[3] Therefore, the entire community is charged
with the duty of burying a mait mitzvah. Even the Kohen
is permitted to defile himself to perform this mitzvah.
The dead body is associated with tumah.
This communicates the worthlessness of the material element of the human
being when separated from the spiritual soul.
Yet, the Torah commands us to treat these remains with the utmost
respect and dignity. These seem to be contradictory and confusing
messages. We are taught, through the
symbolic message of tumah, that the
dead body is a meaningless remnant. It is
bereft of its virtue. It is an agent of
tumah – defilement! The Torah also teaches us to treat this body
with extreme deference. This implies
that the remains retain significance and even sanctity!
In fact, these two attitudes are not
contradictory. The Torah’s treatment of
the dead body provides an insight into the uniqueness of the Torah.
Over the ages, humanity has produced many systems of
law. There are also a variety of
religions and theologies. The Torah is
derived from different source. It is
the Almighty’s revealed truth. We
expect Hashem’s law to bare marks of His wisdom. Our apparent paradox illustrates one of these expressions of
Divine wisdom.
The Torah recognizes that human beings are guided by
intellect and instinct. A comprehensive
religious system must address both of these elements. The intellect must be taught and the instincts must be
trained. Every religion teaches. The essential substance of a religion is its
theology and world-view. These are the
ideas it attempts to impart to its adherents.
However, the instinctual component must also be treated seriously. Religion must incorporate a theory of
psychology. Without psychology, the
instincts are ignored. The religious
practitioner remains a primitive.
We have discussed the important idea communicated by
the tumah associated with the remains
of the dead. This idea is addressed to
the intellectual element of the human being.
In contrast, the dignity with which the dead body is treated is designed
to train the instincts. This mitzvah is an expression of the Torah’s
psychology.
What is the instinctual issue addressed by this
law? We are required to treat each
other with extreme deference. We may
not physically harm another individual or damage another’s property. We may not even speak poorly of others. These behaviors are counter to our basic
instincts. We must train ourselves to adopt
these behaviors. We must deal with our
instincts. This requires a
psychological approach to human behavior.
How are the instincts reformed? First, the same simple message must be
constantly and clearly communicated.
Through this repetition the instincts are influenced. Countless laws and teachings of the Torah
emphasize the dignity of the human being.
This provides constant reinforcement of the Torah’s lesson. Every human being is sacred.
Second, all contrary messages must be eliminated or
minimized. In other words, behaviors
that minimize the value of the human being must be discouraged. For this reason, the Torah insists that we
respect the remains of the dead.
Disrespect might communicate the wrong message to the instincts. The instincts do not recognize fine
distinctions. The instincts do not
necessarily recognize the difference between the treatment required of a human
being and behavior displayed towards human remains. Disrespect towards human remains might undermine the Torah’s
emphasis on deference towards others.
“And to his virgin sister
who is close to him, that is not married, for her he may become ritually unclean.” (VaYikra 21:3)
A Kohen is
generally prohibited from becoming ritually unclean. This prohibition restricts a Kohen
from contact with a dead body.
There are exceptions to this restriction. A Kohen is required to
bury and mourn a close relative. This
obligation takes precedence over the restriction against spiritual impurity.
One of the positive commands of the Torah is to
mourn close relatives. No passage in
the Torah expressly states this mitzvah. Maimonides, in his Sefer HaMitzvot, explains that the command is derived from the
obligation of the Kohen to become
spiritually unclean in order to bury and mourn a close relative. He explains that the mitzvah of mourning is expressed in reference to the Kohen in order to stress the importance
of the command. A Kohen is generally prohibited from becoming spiritually
unclean. Yet, in order to honor the
deceased this restriction is abrogated.
Certainly, a Jew who is not restricted in becoming ritually unclean must
properly care for and mourn the departed!
Maimonides cites our pasuk as
the source of the positive command to mourn.[4]
In his Mishne
Torah, Maimonides discusses the laws of mourning in detail. In the second chapter of the laws of
mourning he mentions our pasuk. He explains that this pasuk obligates the Kohen to
become spiritually unclean.[5] However, it is interesting that in
introducing the command to mourn Maimonides cites a different passage. In order to understand the pasuk Maimonides chooses, a brief
introduction is required.
The construction of the Mishcan was followed by a period of inauguration. The first seven days of this period Moshe
served as the Kohen Gadol. Ahron assumed his duties as High Priest on
the eighth day. On that first day of
Ahron’s service, his sons Nadav and Avihu died. Moshe instructed Ahron, that despite this tragedy, the service in
the Mishcan should not be
interrupted. Ahron and his sons should
continue to perform their functions.
Moshe discovered that although Ahron generally followed these
instructions, he did deviate in one area.
Ahron and the Kohanim had not
eaten their assigned portion of the Chatat
for the new month.
Moshe asked Ahron’s sons Elazar and Itamar to
explain this deviation. The Chumash
relates Ahron’s response. “And Ahron
spoke to Moshe, ‘Today they offered their chatat
and their olah. And this happened to me. And if I ate the chatat, would this behavior be appropriate in Hashem’s eyes?’”[6]
Ahron explained to Moshe that it was inappropriate
for him and his sons to eat from the chatat. They were obligated to mourn the death of
their close relatives. This obligation
disqualified them from consuming the sacrifice.
Maimonides, in introducing the laws of mourning in
the Mishne Torah, quotes Ahron’s
comment to Moshe.[7]
Maimonides’ intention is
clear. Ahron indicated that the
obligation to mourn disqualified him and his children from performing a duty of
the Kohanim. This implies that the Torah recognizes the
requirement to mourn as a mitzvah.
It is interesting that Maimonides cites our pasuk as the source for mourning in his Sefer HaMitzvot. However, in Mishne Torah Maimonides cites Ahron’s response to Moshe!
There is a further difficulty in understanding
Maimonides’ position. In order to
understand this difficulty, we must review some of the laws of mourning.
Mourning is expressed through various
restrictions. Maimonides explains that
there are eleven prohibitions. These
include cutting one’s hair, washing of clothing, and bathing. According to the Torah, these prohibitions
apply for a single day. The Sages
extended the period of mourning. In
some cases, some degree of restriction extends for twelve months.[8]
When do these prohibitions begin? Maimonides explains that generally these
restrictions begin with the completion of the burial.[9]
However, prior to the burial the
restrictions associated with mourning do not apply.
On the day of the death and burial of a close
relative one is defined as an onan.[10]
The obligations of mourning do
not apply until the completion of the burial.
What, then, is the significance of the status of onan?
Maimonides explains that the onan status is relevant to Kohanim. A Kohen
with the status of onan is
disqualified from serving in the Mishcan
or Bait HaMikdash.[11] A Kohen
Gadol continues to serve as an onan. However, he may not eat from the sacrifices.[12]
We can now better understand Ahron’s response to
Moshe. Ahron told Moshe that he and his
sons had the status of onan. This status disqualified them from consuming
the sacrifice.[13]
This creates a new difficulty in understanding
Maimonides’ position. Maimonides, in
Mishne Torah, cites Ahron’s response as the Torah source for the mitzvah of mourning. Ahron was explaining his reason for not
consuming the sacrifice. His reason was
not because he was mourning. He was
explaining that he and his sons had the status of onan! In short, this
passage is not a reference to mourning.
It is a source for the status of onan!
In order to answer these questions, we must consider
the nature of mourning as conceived by the Torah. Mourning involves various restrictions. However, are these prohibitions the essence of the mourning
experience? Maimonides, in the laws of
mourning, does not enumerate the specific restriction until the fifth
chapter. It would seem that these
prohibitions are not the fundamental feature of the mitzvah. Instead, the
essential aspect of mourning is the sense of loss and the contemplation of the
meaning of the tragedy. The
restrictions give visible expression to mourning. They do not define the experience.
The restrictions do not begin until the completion
of the burial process. This does not
mean that mourning has not begun. The
essential element of mourning is the internal aspect – the sense of loss. This element of the mourning begins
immediately. From this perspective, the
status of onan is an expression of
the mitzvah of mourning. The onan
is not obligated in the restrictions associated with mourning. However, the onan is subject to the internal aspect of mourning.
We can now readily understand the effect of the
status of onan upon the Kohen.
The onan is preoccupied with
the death of a close relative. This
internal upheaval disqualifies the Kohen from
service and the Kohen Gadol from
consuming sacrifices.
The status of onan
is a form of mourning. It involves the
essential element without the external expression of the prohibitions. Ahron’s response to Moshe is an appropriate
source for the mitzvah of mourning.
Maimonides cites Ahron’s response to Moshe to
introduce the mitzvah of
mourning. This passage captures the
essential nature of the mitzvah. Our pasuk
indicates the existence of the mitzvah. But it tells us little of the nature of the
command. Ahron’s statement expresses
the essence of mourning. It captures
the internal aspect of the command.
[1] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer VaYikra, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1997), p 317.
[2] Sefer Devarim 21:23.
[3] Rav Ahron HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 537.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 37.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Avel 2:6.
[6] Sefer VaYikra 11:19.
[7] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Avel 1:1.
[8] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Avel, Chapters 5 and 6.
[9] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Avel 1:2.
[10] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Bey’at HaMikdash 2:9.
[11] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Bey’at HaMikdash 2:6.
[12] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Bey’at HaMikdash 2:8.
[13] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Bey’at HaMikdash 2:8.