A very, very rough outline of Parshat Emor's first two perekim:
Perek 21
A. The Impurity Caused by a Dead Cohen (21:1-6, 1o-12)
B. A Cohenness who Must be Burned (21:9)
C. The Disqualification of a Blemished Cohen (21:16-24)
Perek 22
A. The Impurity Caused by a Dead Animal/Carrion (22:8)
B. Laws of a Sacrifice That Must be Burned (22:17-18)
C. The Disqualification of a Blemished Sacrifice (22:19-24)
Wacky, right?
The textual parallel is very loose and shaky. But the conceptual parallel is kinda cool.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's not impurity caused by a Dead Cohen, it's impurity caused by anyone "בְּעַמָּיו".
The focus on a sacrifice that must be burned is also very shaky, as right afterward it discusses Shelamim offerings.
The only parallels I really see are the A and C, and, since no one is supposed to eat nevelah anyway, I really only see it for C, although A is tantalizingly suggestive.
The emphasis is on a dead Cohen-relative, but your point is still taken.
I hear ya - its loose . . .
The emphasis on relatives is that they can be exceptions to the rule of avoiding impurity. I would say that the emphasis is therefore not on impurity caused by a Dead Cohen, but by just about anyone. Where is the parallel for "allowed" impurity with nevelah?
Post a Comment