Questions — Parshah Emor
Leviticus 21
The word Emor. Verse 21:1 is loaded with words describing speech. Va-Yomer, Emor and ve-Amartah. The Emor and ve-Amartah seem like a repetition. Rashi and Ibn Ezra note this issue and offer explanations for why it is not a repetition. Is the variation of language a parallelism ? (A poetic device which the commentators then undo with explanations for how these two clauses in the parallelism mean different things.) Are we talking about two ways of communicating?
Why is this chapter broken off from the previous one and given the introduction in verse one? Does this idea not fit with the previous idea at the end of Chapter 20. That is also a case where contact with the dead “defiles” someone.
The permission to defile oneself in order to provide proper burial for a relative seems like a compromise of a principle written into the law. Why is the law otherwise so inflexible? (The rabbis modify the law to allow for the participation in the burial of the wife.)
Cutting the beard and pulling out hair is forbidden. Is it forbidden only for the priests? Commentators point out that the prohibition relates to funeral customs of the Canaanites. Do we need to memorialize the customs of others by maintaining prohibitions based on the customs of other peoples? Should we now take the same attitude of prohibition towards the customs of other groups which are different from those that were objected to in 21:5? Should we still maintain the original prohibitions even though their purpose, according to the commentators, is not really understandable? Can Judaism make sense of the variations in customs from place to place that would need to be barred with an equal degree of variation within Jewish practice? Should we reject the opinion of the commentators to close off these questions?
The daughter of a Cohen who engages in harlotry suffers a consequence - death. Why are the consequences for the priest not described? What is the definition of harlotry here? If it refers to regular arts of prostitution would we not ask why a woman would be engaged in prostitution? Isn’t there some indication here that the woman was not able to provide for herself in any other way? Is this not an indication that some male member of her family is failing to provide for according to that person’s Torah obligations? Why would this be more strictly applied than in the case of a woman who engages in the odd act of sexual immorality (according to the commentators)?
21:14 Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife. Overall, this verse uses odd word order. What does this use of “kin” mean? Does it mean tribe or clan?
The “defective” person can still eat from the sacrifices. Other than women and minors, who else is excluded from temple service but allowed to eat? Mental defectives are not mentioned as they probably would have been in a Talmudic formulation. Why not? Were they allowed to serve?
The verse closes with a sort of repetition. How the words were spoken is explained. Is this necessary?
Chapter 22
