?Daber es Aharon Leimor?. Why did the Torah not begin with ?Daber el Aharon ve?el Banav Leimor?, like it did above in 6:2 and in other places?
Ramban and R. Bachye: Because then it would have had to continue ?Ish Mikem le?Doroseichem asher Yih?yeh bo Mum? ? incorporating Aharon in the warning against a Kohen with a Mum serving, which the Torah did not want to do, since Aharon was a K?dosh Hashem far removed from the prospect of blemishes. 1
Ramban and R. Bachye: Whereas now the Torah confines the warning to . Refer also to 21:17:151:1.
What are the implications of the word "Ish mi'Zar'acha'?
Chulin, 24b: It implies that a Katan - even a Tam (without blemish) is not eligiible to serve in the Beis-Hamikdash. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 111.
What are the connotations of "Lechem Elokav"?
Rashi, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It means 'the food of Hashem' 1 - with reference to the Korbanos.
Sifra: With reference to 21:21:1:1*** - it teaches uss that although a Kohen Ba?al-Mum is forbiddes to perform all Avodos, he is not subject to Malkos on Avodos sh?Einan Tamos.
Rashi: Since the Torah refers to a meal as "Lechem" (as in Daniel, 5:1).
Why does the Torah insert the word "Lo Yikrav Lehakriv" - and not simply write "Lo Yakriv"?
Sifra: To include bringing the blood to the Mizbe'ach, which only leads to an Avodah, and is not on itself, an 'Avodah Tamah' (a final Avodah, like sprinkling the blood) in the prohibition. 1
See Oznayim la'Torah, who elaborates.
Why does the Torah write in Parshas Mumim 'Say to Aharon', and in the Parshah of Temei'im (22:2) 'Say to Aharon and his sons'?
Moshav Zekenim: Aharon was without any blemish, so the Parshah implies that he is told only regarding his descendants. Tum'ah could apply to him, so it was told to him and his sons together. Regarding a Metzora, it says (22:4) "mi'Zera Aharon", for this would not occur to Aharon himself - he was [like] an angel! It says "Ish Ish" to include Aharon, - future Kohanim Gedolim. Alternatively, the Torah teaches him, for it does not rely on miracles, but it taught covertly, to hint that it would not occur to him. 1
Moshe had Tzara'as temporarily, Miryam for a week, and David for six months! One opinion in Shabbos 97a says that Aharon received Tzara'as [together with Miriam, just his departed right away]! Perhaps that opinion holds that the Torah taught covertly here, to avoid allusion to his Tzara'as. We find like this elsewhere (refer to 20:19:151:1).
What do we learn from "Ish mi'Zar'acha"?
Moshav Zekenim (citing Chulin 24b): A Katan is Pasul for Avodah. 1
Moshav Zekenim: The Kohanim did not allow one to serve until the age of twenty. If he served, Tana'im argue about b'Di'eved, whether it is Pasul mid'Rabanan. See also Torah Temimah, note 112.
Why does the Torah write "Asher Yih'yeh Bo Mum" in the future tense ?
Moshav Zekenim (mostly from the Sifra 3:2:2): Because it incorporates blemishes from before Matan Torah (as opposed to Zivus and Nega'im, which were not yet commanded), those with which the Kohen is born, and temporary blemishes.
Oznayim la'Torah: Because had it written 'asher bo Mum' in the present tense, it would have implies that at least one of Aharon's sons had blemishes - which was simply not true.
Sifra: "Yih'yeh" implies a permanent blemish. 1
