The Blogs: “Talk to” rather than “Quote Me” – אמר vs. לאמר (Parshat Emor) | J.J Gross

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 God said to Moshe, talk (אֱמֹ֥ר) to the priests the sons of Aharon and tell them, none should become impure of the dead among his people (Vayikra/ Leviticus 21:1).

Later on verse 22:3 reads:

אֱמֹ֣ר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם לְדֹרֹ֨תֵיכֶ֜ם כׇּל־אִ֣ישׁ ׀ אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרַ֣ב מִכׇּל־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 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 God, 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. Indeed, the usual phrasing is as follows:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר … דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶֽל…

And God spoke to Moshe to say thus … speak to … 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 asking Moshe to address the Israelites, and the verbal pattern is the typical one of וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר … דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶֽל…

However the two ‘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 priests, using third person language; e.g.

וְלַאֲחֹת֤וֹ הַבְּתוּלָה֙ הַקְּרוֹבָ֣ה אֵלָ֔יו

to his virgin sister who is near to him (21:3)

The normal form would be “to your virgin sister who is near to you”.

Likewise with the second appearance of the word ‘emor’; e.g.

Tell them: Throughout the ages, if any man among your offspring, while in a state of impurity, partakes of any sacred donation that the Israelite people may consecrate to God, that person shall be cut off from before Me: I am God. (22:4)

Both uses of the word ‘emor’ and the unusual, third person way of transmitting the laws in question, address issues of ritual impurity (טומאה) 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 pass on 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 tumah of a kohen that is so fraught one dare not mention it except in an eliptical manner? After all, in this very same parsha, 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׃

And God spoke to Moshe to say:

דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ מִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֞ לְדֹרֹתָ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִהְיֶ֥ה בוֹ֙ מ֔וּם לֹ֣א יִקְרַ֔ב לְהַקְרִ֖יב לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹהָֽיו׃

Speak to Aaron and say: No man among your offspring throughout the ages who has a defect shall be qualified to offer the food of his God.
(21:16-17)

Why is it 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, ‘tumah’, is an abstraction. Yes, we know we are ritually impure after attending a funeral, and we do a symbolic hand washing after leaving the funeral home or cemetery. But, in fact, we don’t really feel impure or different in any way despite our supposed impurity.

We can only assume that a state of ‘tumah’ was a vastly more profound and powerful one back in the times of Moshe and the Mishkan. 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.

From Parshat Emor we can infer that ‘tumah’ 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 tumah was terrifying. The individual who was tumah was perceived as being responsible for having brought himself into such a pariah state. And 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 tumah, the manner in which He does so indicates the enormous chasm 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 rather than in the second person singular so that none may take offense, and so that 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 the state of tumah.

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 priest’s shortcoming is not his fault, and it in no way diminishes from his social status as a kohen. Indeed;

לֶ֣חֶם אֱלֹהָ֔יו מִקׇּדְשֵׁ֖י הַקֳּדָשִׁ֑ים וּמִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁ֖ים יֹאכֵֽל׃

He may eat of the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy (21:22)