Why does the Torah insert the double Lashon "Emor" "Ve'amarta"?
Ramban #2 (citing Ibn Ezra) 3 and Seforno: "Emor" refers to the previous Parshah with regard to delving into the Parshiyos there and teaching the people the Dinim of Tum'ah and Taharah, and to distinguish between the Tahor and Tamei species of animals and birds. 4 Whereas "Ve'amarta" pertains to the current Parshah, which places upon the Kohanim additional obligations with regard to Tum'as Meis and desecrating their offspring, in keeping with their higher level of Kedushah.
Ramban #2 and Moshav Zekenim #1: The Pasuk simply means that Hashem spoke to Moshe saying. 5
Ramban #3 and Moshav Zekenim #2: The extra warning comes to incorporate the Ketanim.
Oznayim la'Torah #1 (citing the Midrash): "Emor" refers to the La'av of "le'Nefesh Lo Yitama be'Amav" and "Ve'amarta", to the Mitzvah of Meis Mitzvah (Midrash Eichah) or the other way round (Vayikra Rabah). 6
Oznayim la'Torah: To teach the Kohen to be doubly careful to avoid becoming Tamei, even be'Shogeg or be'Oneis, seeing as he will be Tamei, irrespective of whether he is Shogeg or Meizid (and will therefore be Chayav Kareis if he enters the Beis-Hamikdash and render his Avodah Pasul).
Ramban #1: The warning, which also appears in connection with Dam and Sheratzim, extends to all the Isurim in the Torah. and is confined to actually assisting the child to sin, but one need not stop him if he sins of his own accord. Moshav Zekenim #1: Elsewhere, one need not stop a Katan who sins by himself. Tum'ah is different. This is why it does not say about Tum'ah like it says elsewhere 'if a Katan is eating Neveilah, Beis Din need not separate him.' Regarding Sheratzim and blood, we read "Lo Tochlum" like "Lo Ta'achilum"; this forbids only feeding him. Here, the inclusion includes every case; even if the minor wants to be Metamei himself, we must stop him. Moshav Zekenim: Others derive the prohibition from the fact that the Torah adds "ha'Kohanim" to "B'nei Aharon," which it does not do in other locations." In answer to the Ri, who asks why we need a Pasuk; why it is not obvious, since we are afraid that they may become used to it (and continue to do so when they grow-up - just as the Chachamim did not institute the rec1ital of Kidush on Yom Kipur and giving the Kos to a Katan to drink - one can answer that here there is no cause for concern since Tum'as Meis is not common - PF)
Yevamos (Ibid.): Not to render them Tamei with one's hands. See Torah Temimah, note 6. and refer to to 21:1:156:2.
The Ramban himself refutes this explanation.
Seforno: Seeing as this pertains more aptly to the Kohanim. See Shemini, 10:10 & 11 (See also ve'Zos ha'Berachah Devarim 33:10) and Kedoshim, 20:25).
Ramban, Moshav Zekenim: It is as if it had written 'Daber el B'nei Yisrael - like we find in Tehilim, 5:2 and in Mishlei, 22:21 - which the Torah writes when it wants to emphasize an issue, either due to its severity or because it is something that is constantly transgressed (See R. Chavel's footnotes and Ramban, who elaborates further).
See Oznayim la'Torah, who explains the Machlokes.
Why does the Torah write both "ha'Kohanim" and "B'nei Aharon"?
Rashi #1: It writes "Kohanim" to preclude Chalalim from the prohibition, and "B'nei Aharon" to include Ba'alei-Mumin.
Rashi #2 (in Shemini): The Torah writes "Kohanim" to preclude Yisre'elim from the prohibition of Tum'as Meis. 1
Ramban: Whenever the Torah is speaking about the duties of the Kohanim in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, it refers to "Aharon u'Banav", 2 whereas here, where it is speaking about the Kohanim themselves, even when they are not performing in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, it refers to them as Kohanim. 3
Refer to note #1 in answer #3.
And certainly from a prohibition against Tum'as Neveilos (Rosh Hashanah, 16b). Refer also to the question in Shemini, 11:8:3 and answers.
See for example , 3:5, 3:8.
Ramban: 'Kohanim of Hashem and servants of our G-d. (Throughout the Parshiyos of Korbanos, the Torah refers to them as "ha'Kohen", "ha'Kohanim" and "B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim" (See for example , 1:5, 1:9, and 6:22)! Perhaps the Ramban means that only here it says "ha'Kohanim B'nei Aharon" - PF.)
What are the implications of "B'nei Aharon"? What is it coming to preclude?
Rashi: To preclude B'nos Aharon (Kohanos) from the prohibition. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 4 regarding whether they are obligated to bury their close relatives.
What are the implications of "be'Amav"?
Rashi: To preclude a Meis Mitzvah - who is not among the people 1 (if nobody from among the people is there to bury him - Sifra) from the prohibition.
Ramban #1: It means simply that a Kohen is not permitted to render himself Tamei for a dead person of his people.
Ramban #2: With reference to Pasuk 4 2 , it means that 'a master among the people' may not render himself Tamei for a Meis'.
Rashbam: It means that someone from the tribe of the Kohanim 3 is not permitted to render himself Tamei Meis.
Seforno: It means that a Kohen may not render himself Tamei for a Meis who is not a relative.
Da'as Zekenim and Hadar Zekenim: It means that a Kohen may not become Tamei even for members of his own tribe - with reference to relatives other than the seven close relatives.
Why does the Torah juxtapose "Emor el ha'Kohanim" to the Pasuk concerning Ov and Yid'oni?
Hadar Zekenim: Moshe [prophetically] saw Sha'ul's death, and asked why the first king must die this way, to which Hashem replied - because he said to Do'eg to kill the Kohanim [of Nov], and he used a Ba'alas Ov to conjure up Shmuel. 1
Moshav Zekenim #1 citing R. Yehudah ha'Chasid: Sha'ul asked why he must die unlike other kings, to which Hashem replied - because he killed the Kohanei Nov, using a Ba'alas Ov. And when Sha'ul asked for pardon, Hashem replied that although He forgave him for consulting the Ba'alas Ov, "Emor El ha'Kohanim" - he needs to ask the Kohanim for forgiveness, and they are vo longer alive.
Moshav Zekenim #2: With reference to the Pasuk in Kedoshim, 20:25, which discusses dividing between Tahor and Tamei, the Torah is means - 'Tell the Kohanim to sanctify themselves and separate Aharon to be Kodesh Kodoshim.
Moshav Zekenim #3: Tell Kohanim, who tell Yisrael the future (via the Urim ve'Tumim 2 ) and rule for them, to distance from Tum'as Meis, in case people suspect them of consulting Ov and Yid'oni.
R. Chaim Paltiel: The Torah is hinting that, since most of the Nevi'im were Kohanim, when the Kohanim see their relatives prophesying, they might be envious and consult an Ov, so that they too, will be able to predict the future.
Why is the Din of a Kohen Hedyot taught before that of a Kohen Gadol?
Moshav Zekenim, citing R. Eliezer of Garmaiza: A Kohen Hedyot becomes Tamei for relatives, so he is taught first, near Tum'ah taught above. A Kohen Gadol does not become Tamei even for relatives.
Why are Kohanim forbidden to become Tamei Meis?
Moshav Zekenim: To prevent them from being Metamei the Mikdash when they enter to perform the Avodah. 1
See Oznayim la'Torah, DH 'Emor Ve'amarta' #4, who elaborates.
What do the Chachamim men when they say "Lehazir Gedolim al ha'Ketanim'?
Refer to 21:1:1:1 and note
Moshav Zekenim #1: They mean that Beis-Din are obligated to stop a Kohen Katan from being Metameii himself. 1
Even though elsewhere, one need not stop a Katan who sins by himself, Tum'ah is different. And that explains why it does not say about Tum'ah like it says regarding Neveilah 'If a Katan is eating Neveilah, Beis Din need not separate him.' Regarding Sheratzim and blood, we read "Lo Tochlum" like "Lo Ta'achilum"; this forbids only feeding him. Here, the inclusion includes every case; even if the minor wants to be Metamei himself, we must stop him.
What are the implications of the word "le'Nefesh"?
Moshav Zekenim: It incorporates a Revi'is of blood (and other parts of a Meis that separate from it - Sifra) 1 in the prohibition. For a Kohen Gadol however, "Al Kol Nafshos Meis" 2 (in Pasuk 11) is an additional Lav. 3
See Torah Temimah, note 7.
Moshav Zekenim citing Ri: Why does the Gemara in Sanhedrin, 4a learn liability for a Revi'is from the Pasuk of Kohen Gadol, and not from our Pasuk?
Moshav Zekenim (on Pasuk 11): All the Lavin repeated about a Kohen Gadol are to add another Lav. If not, why were they taught? He is included in the Kohanim!
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "B'nei Aharon" includes Ba'alei-Mumim. But the Torah also writes "ha'Kohanim B'nei Aharon" regarding Korbanos - from which a Ba'al Mum is precluded?
Riva: "Kol Ish asher bo Mum Lo Yikrav" disqualifies a Ba'al Mum for Avodah. However, it needed to say B'nei Aharon to exclude the Bnos Aharon.
Rashi writes that "B'nei Aharon" includes Ba'alei-Mumim. But the Sifra expounds that just like Aharon is Kosher, also B'nei Aharon implies without a Mum?
Mizrachi (on Pasuk 5): Perhaps we really expound from "ha'Kohanim" (to include a Ba'al Mum).
Rashi writes that "B'nei Aharon" precludes B'nos Aharon. Pasukim also exempt women from the Lav of Hakafas ha'Rosh and of shaving the beard. Bearing in mind the principle that 'Sheloshah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin' (We cannot learn from three Lavin which teach us the same thin - on to other cases), why do we need a Pasuk to obligate women regarding all other Lavin?
Rashi (Kidushin 35a DH u'Meshani) holds that Sh'nei (or Sheloshah) Kesuvim do not teach to elsewhere at all. (Without a source, we would not know that women are obligated in other Lavim.) Moshav Zekenim left this difficult. He holds like Tosfos (24b DH Havah Amina), that Shnei (or Sheloshah) Kesuvim teach that elsewhere, the law is the opposite. (PF)
Rashi writes that "B'nei Aharon" precludes B'nos Aharon. Why are they then permitted to become Tamei?
Moshav Zekenim citing Ri: The Avodah is through males, and not through females.
Moshav Zekenim: A female (Chavah) brought death to the world, so it is proper that they become Tamei Meis. This is why "v'Lamadnah Venoseichem Nehi" (Yirmeyah 9:19), for they brought death to the world, which causes wailing, and they go in front of the bier.
Rashi writes that "be'Amav" precludes a Meis Mitzvah, who is not among his nation. Why is this needed, seeing as even a Kohen Gadol and Nazir are Metamei for a Meis Mitzvah?
Moshav Zekenim: If not for the Pasuk here, one might have thought that it is optional to be Metamei for a Meis Mitzvah. The Pasuk here teaches that it is obligatory.
Moshav Zekenim (4): Our Pasuk 1 teaches that if a Kohen Hedyot and a Nazir are together and find a Meis Mitzvah, the Kohen is Metamei, and not the Nazir, even though the Kohen's Kedushah is permanent.
