The Mitzvah To Stay Pure
By R’ Mordechai Young
Once Rashi was walking and a lady in an unusual white outfit went by him riding a horse. Since Rashi was very careful with his eyes, he wondered why he had encountered her. He realized the garment she was wearing was similar to the clothing of a kohen, so he reasoned that Hashem had sent him a visual to help him with his explanation of the clothing of the kohen. We learn from this that Rashi was concerned because what a person sees affects him.
In this week’s parashah, Emor (Vayikra 21:1), Hashem commands Moshe to instruct the kohanim(priests), the sons of Aharon, regarding the prohibition of becoming ritually impure through contact with the dead (meis). The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh asks why it states here “amar” (say) and not the usual word that introduces a mitzvah “daber,” which means to speak. He quotes the Midrash Tanchuma to explain the unique commandment regarding Tumat Kohanim (priestly impurity) and the prohibition against kohanim coming into contact with a corpse because, since they come in and out of the Beis HaMikdash before Hashem, it’s not proper for them to gaze at a meis. The Ohr HaChaim explains that it says “amar” because it doesn’t only mean “to say,” but also maalah, language showing distinction. In the Artscroll sefer where it explains the Ohr HaChaim on the pasuk in Devarim 26:17, “You have distinguished Hashem this day to be a G-d for you, etc.” In this case, Hashem distinguishes that the root of the word “heamarta” (hey, alef, mem, resh, tav) is amar. Thus, we see the great example of the word amar being used as a way to elevate Bnei Yisrael with distinction.
It’s interesting that the Midrash Tanchuma explains that the Kohanim must be careful not to become tamei because they go into the Beis HaMikdash, so it would not be proper. Why doesn’t it state the practical reason, that they do the Avodah so they must be constantly pure at all times? A tamei person cannot enter the Beis HaMikdash, and certainly can’t do the Avodah. The Midrash Rabbah states that Aharon was zocheh(merited) this mitzvah because he had yiras shamayim. Therefore, this mitzvah is passed down to his children forever. As the pasuk states, yiras Hashem tehorah (holy) omedes le’ad (lasts forever). Since the fear of Hashem is holy, it’s a fitting reward that they don’t become unholy. So, from this Midrash we can understand why the Midrash Tanchuma did not write the practical reason, since it’s a reward that goes beyond that. If it was just practical, the kohanim could have figured it out by themselves that since they must remain pure at all times, they should not come into contact with a meis. So, for keeping this mitzvah, they are rewarded. In Pirkei Avos, it’s taught that the reward for a mitzvah is a mitzvah. Aharon feared Hashem and was rewarded with a mitzvah not to become tamei.
Why did the Midrash Tanchuma write it’s not fitting for them to see a meis, as opposed to touching it or being under the same roof with it since touching it brings the impurity, not merely seeing it.
The Sefer Chinuch explains the nature of how a dead body has tumah. A Yid has a neshamah, which is a part of Hashem. When the person dies, the neshamah leaves the body, which means the body remains void of any holiness. Any bad action done causes the unholiness to stay with the body, so without the neshamah, the body emanates impurity. Since a person is affected by what they see, perhaps that since the meis represents tumah, is not proper for a kohen to see it either. When writing about this pasuk, the Kli Yakar wrote “Kel Chai,” the living Hashem, which could be a hint for us that when serving Hashem our action needs a chiyus, a lively energy. But seeing a meis can lower that energy. We know a person is affected by what they see. Chazal teach in Sotah 2a that anyone who sees a Sotah lady in the punishment process, all unkempt, should remove himself from wine. Seeing that vision made an impression, so he had to counter it with an action. The Ohr HaChaim writes about the mitzvah of tzitzis (same question as above): Why does it say vayomer (and he said) and not vayidaber? He also brought a Midrash after the gatherer of twigs was killed for desecrating the Shabbos (in Parashat Shelach). Moshe Rabbeinu asks Hashem, “During the week we have tefillin to remind us not to sin, but we don’t wear tefillin on Shabbos, so what will remind us?” Hashem then gave us the mitzvah of tzitzis. And since it was a pleasing conversation about avoiding sin, Hashem used the word amar. In the Gemara Makkos, 11a, it teaches how the word daber is used in speaking harshly, while amar is used in speaking softly. So maybe here as well the word amar is used since the midrash explains that since Aharon earned a reward, it was like a pleasant conversation, so amar is more fitting than daber.
I was wondering: Why have both Midrashim about kohanim not becoming tamei? I asked Rabbi Doniel Bak of Yeshiva HaChaim Vehashalom in Cedarhurst and he answered beautifully. One midrash highlights during the time of the Beis HaMikdash, so Midrash Tanchuma stated it was not proper for those going in and out of the Mikdash. But the Midrash Rabbah talks about a reward forever, so it applies to kohanim even nowadays. May the Beis HaMikdash be rebuilt speedily in our days.
Have a great Shabbos!
R’ Mordechai Young can be reached for comments at [email protected].
