“אמר” is not “לאמר”: Parshat Emor

The use of “אמר” vs “לאמר”

The very word אמר  “emor” for which this parsha is named, and which appears twice in the parsha, is unusual. The opening verse says;

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֱמֹ֥ר אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִ֖ים בְּנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹ֑ן וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ לֹֽא־יִטַּמָּ֖א בְּעַמָּֽיו׃
And Adonai said to Moshe: Speak to the kohanim, the sons of Aharon, and say to them: None shall defile himself among the (dead) of his people
Vayikra/Leviticus 21:1

 Later on verse 22:3 reads:

אֱמֹ֣ר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם לְדֹרֹ֨תֵיכֶ֜ם כּל־אִ֣ישׁ ׀ אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרַ֣ב מִכּל־זַרְעֲכֶ֗ם אֶל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַקְדִּ֤ישׁוּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה וְטֻמְאָת֖וֹ עָלָ֑יו וְנִכְרְתָ֞ה הַנֶּ֧פֶשׁ הַהִ֛וא מִלְּפָנַ֖י אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃
Tell them [the kohanim] for all your generations, every man [kohen] from all your progeny who, while impurity is upon him, sacrifices of the holy things that have been sanctified by the Children of Israel unto Adonai, that soul shall be cut off from my presence, I am Adonai.

In both these verses God is asking Moshe to communicate a message to kohanim. And in both instances the phrasing is very different from the way God normally makes such requests.

The usual phrasing is: וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר etc. And Adonai spoke to Moshe to say thus … etc”. God uses very precise language and expects Moshe to quote Him verbatim. Furthermore the language God uses is second person singular or second person plural, which is how Moshe then faithfully addresses the intended audience.

Our parsha is no exception. Indeed it is replete with examples of God requesting of Moshe to address the Israelites, and the verbal pattern is the typical one of וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר  etc.

However the two אֱמֹ֣ר  ‘emor’ verses are exceptional. Here God is not asking Moshe to quote Him verbatim. He is merely asking Moshe to communicate certain information to the kohanim, using third person language; e.g. וְלַאֲחֹת֤וֹ הַבְּתוּלָה֙ הַקְּרוֹבָ֣ה אֵלָ֔יו (21:3) – to his virgin sister who is near to him. The normal form would be “to your virgin sister who is close to you”.

Likewise, with the second appearance of the word אֱמֹ֣ר e.g.

The message is addressed to the abstract “he” not to the concrete “you”.

Both uses of the word אֱמֹ֣ר  and the unusual, third person way of transmitting the laws in question, address issues of ritual impurity (tum’ah) in cases where the kohen himself is the one who is ritually impure.

Cleary God is distancing Himself from the object of such impurity to the degree that the manner of addressing the issue is relatively oblique even though the ramifications are extreme. And in so doing, God is telling Moshe to convey the information using third person reference rather than pointing to his audience of kohanim, lest any of them assume the words are intended ad hominem.

But the question is why? What is it about the tum’ah of a kohen that is so fraught that one dares not mention it except in a roundabout way? After all, in this very same parasha, when God disqualifies physically imperfect kohanim from performing the temple rituals He reverts to His usual speech pattern and second person singular;

     וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ מִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֞ לְדֹרֹתָ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִהְיֶ֥ה בוֹ֙ מ֔וּם לֹ֣א יִקְרַ֔ב לְהַקְרִ֖יב לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹהָֽיו׃
And Adonai spoke to Moshe: Speak to Aharon and say: No man of your offspring throughout the ages who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the food of his God.
(21:16).

Why is it that it is okay, indeed mandatory, to quote God verbatim, and to speak directly concerning priestly disqualification on the basis of physical imperfection – a disqualification that can have lifetime implications – while at the same it is not acceptable when the topic is ritual impurity which is typically a temporary disqualifier?

In our times, ritual impurity, tum’ah, is an abstraction. Yes, we know we are ritually impure after attending a funeral, and we do a pro forma ritual hand washing after leaving the funeral home or cemetery. But in fact we don’t really feel impure or different in any way for our supposed impurity.

We can only assume that a state of tum’ah was a vastly more profound and powerful one back in the times of Moshe, the Mishkan and the Beit Mikdash. Back then it was a visceral state that one actually felt. Indeed the נגע צרעת the skin disease that is associated with gossip (although often translated as leprosy) was in fact the physical manifestation of a state of spiritual impurity. We, today, are unfamiliar with this disease and the power it had on both the inflicted individual and the entire community.(Although we are hardly unfamiliar with gossip which has, indeed, become an industry)

From Parshat Emor we can infer that tum’ah was something far different from today’s abstraction which requires merely a ritual hand washing or immersion in a mikveh. In ancient Israel, the idea of tum’ah was terrifying. And the individual who was tum’ah was perceived as being responsible for having brought himself into such a pariah state. When that individual was a kohen, a priest, and he allowed himself to be ritually defiled this was a direct affront to God Himself.

Hence we can now understand why when God must transmit the laws regarding priestly tum’ah, the manner in which He does so indicates the enormous distance that such a state creates between the defiled kohen and the Almighty who the kohen is commanded to serve. Likewise, when Moshe passes on this information to the kohanim he does so in a more elliptical manner so that none may take offense, and none should look at his fellow priest and assume that perhaps Moshe was referring to him specifically. Such was the dread and the social blemish that were associated with such a status.

By contrast, a kohen stricken with a physical blemish or disfigurement, while ineligible for priestly service in the Temple, is nevertheless not in a state of ritual impurity. Such a kohen’s shortcoming is not his fault, and it in no way diminishes from his social status as a kohen. Indeed; לֶ֣חֶם אֱלֹהָ֔יו מִקּדְשֵׁ֖י הַקֳּדָשִׁ֑ים וּמִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֖ים יֹאכֵֽל׃  He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy (21:22)

***

Two aditional notes on this parsha:

1.

וְהַכֹּהֵן֩ הַגָּד֨וֹל מֵאֶחָ֜יו אֲֽשֶׁר־יוּצַ֥ק עַל־רֹאשׁ֣וֹ ׀ שֶׁ֤מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה֙ וּמִלֵּ֣א אֶת־יָד֔וֹ לִלְבֹּ֖שׁ אֶת־הַבְּגָדִ֑ים אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ֙ לֹ֣א יִפְרָ֔ע וּבְגָדָ֖יו לֹ֥א יִפְרֹֽם׃
The kohen who is greater than his brothers (i.e. fellow kohanim), on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not bare his head or rend his vestments.
(21:10)

This reference to the Kohen Gadol, the High Priest, is clearly indicating that that he must be chosen because he is indeed greater than all the other kohanim in character and knowledge. A Kohen Gadol who is chosen for political reasons or as the result of a power play is not a true Kohen Gadol. The phrasing here is very precise.

2.

 ַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן וְאֶל־בָּנָ֑יו וְאֶֽל־כּל־בְּנֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל
Thus Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.|(21:24)

This is the final verse of chapter 21. It should be followed by what it was that Moshe told Aharon and his sons and all the children of Israel.   And yet it is a dead end. Clearly, we are missing something here. The conventional translations that one finds are designed to mitigate this obvious lacuna. For example, Sefaria: Thus Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites. There is nothing even hinting at “thus” in this verse. Whatever is missing here is a mystery.