1: And Hashem said to Moshe: Speak to the priests the sons of Aaron, and say to them: He shall not defile himself for the dead among his people; 2: except for his kin, those near to him, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother; 3: and for his sister a virgin, that is near unto him, that has had no husband, for her may he defile himself. 4: He shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself. (Vayikra 21:1-4)

The above translation, adapted from the 1917 JPS edition, translates “she’ero” in the second verse as kin. According to that interpretation, the passage begins with a general term for relatives and then proceeds to list six specific examples. An analogous usage of the word in Vayikra 18:6 bolsters this reading. If so, the passage only mentions blood relatives and does not include a wife among those for who the priest can become ritually impure. Ibn Ezra says that, were it not for Chazal’s alternative reading, he would have explained the passage in this manner.

This approach impacts on the last verse cited above as well. What does the word “baal” mean in the phrase “Lo yetame ba’al be’amav?” JPS says “chief” but the word also means husband. If it refers to the husband, the verse explicitly informs us that a priest does not defile himself for his deceased wife. However, Ibn Ezra ultimately follows Chazal in translating “she’ero” as his wife, which means the Torah clearly mandates that the priest defile himself to tend to his wife’s funeral. How then do we read the fourth verse? Rashi says that a husband does not become ritually impure for a wife who was forbidden to a priest. One when he marries a halachically appropriate woman does he become tame to tend to her funeral.

Onkelos and Ramban offer an alternative approach to our final verse. Onkelos translates “ba’al” as “be’rabba” meaning an honorable person or a nobleman. Ramban cites other examples in Tanach where “ba’al” has this meaning. According to this approach, the last verse says noting about husbands; it reiterates that a priest should not defile himself. Does the verse then add anything? Ramban explains that we might have thought that the prohibition against a priest becoming tame met is limited to priests coming to serve in the temple. This verse clarifies that the prohibition stems from priestly nobility which always exists and has nothing to do with the temple service.

What justifies Chazal’s interpretation of “she’ero?” R. Yosef Bechor Shor argues that when the Torah tells us that a priest only defiles himself for an unmarried sister, it implicitly suggests that the married sister’s husband takes care of her funeral. Apparently, this applies even if the husband is a priest. Perhaps Chazal were also motivated by their understanding of Judaic ethics. A husband and wife may not be blood relatives but they form the most precious and loving relationship in our human experience. Surely, we allow those priests who become tame for siblings to do the same for their spouses.