Leviticus 10:1<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Nadab and Abihu each took his fire pan. They had already done so (before the fire came forth from before the Lord), in order to turn the incense into smoke inside, on the golden altar\u2014for the incense offered in the morning must precede the burning of the sacrificial parts. But they put in their fire pans alien fire, which He had not enjoined upon them. Rather, fire that he, Moses, had not enjoined upon them to offer on that day. For even though (as we are told in 1:7) on all other days \u201cthe sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar,\u201d Moses neither commanded them nor wanted them to bring ordinary fire. For they were expecting fire to descend from on high, and it would not be right to bring other fire on this day. The whole point was to sanctify the heavenly name, letting everyone witness that the fire had come from heaven. Elijah did the very same thing when he said to the prophets of Baal, \u201cChoose one bull and prepare it first, for you are the majority; invoke your god by name, but apply no fire\u201d (1 Kings 18:25), and for the same purpose\u2014he wanted to sanctify the heavenly name by having them witness the descent of fire from above.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Each took his fire pan. In my opinion, this too took place \u201con the eighth day\u201d of Nisan (9:1). The proof is that Aaron tells Moses in v. 19, \u201cSee, this day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering.\u201d Put fire in it. Not from the fire that came forth (9:24); that is what made it alien fire. Which He had not enjoined upon them. They had not been commanded to use fire and burn incense, but did it on their own.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
They offered before the LORD alien fire. This phrase is the key if you wish to understand what the sin of Nadab and Abihu was. It does not say, \u201cThey offered before the LORD incense that He had not enjoined upon them.\u201d They put incense \u201con the fire.\u201d As Deut. 33:10 says, \u201cThey shall offer You incense to Your anger.\u201d They focused their attention only on the fiery divine attribute of justice. This was not \u201can offering by fire of pleasing odor.\u201d Notice that the verse says that they laid incense \u201con it.\u201d In the case of Korah and his rebels, Moses instructed them, \u201cDo this: You, Korah and all your band, take fire pans, and tomorrow put fire in them and lay incense on them before the LORD\u201d (Num. 16:6\u20137, and see also Num. 16:16\u201317). Here, however, the text explicitly says \u201con it,\u201d implying that they put the incense directly \u201con the fire.\u201d So \u201cfire came forth from the LORD and consumed them\u201d (v. 2). It may be that this alludes to \u201cyou shall not offer alien incense on it\u201d (Exod. 30:9)\u2014that they should not do it in a way that alienated the incense from any aspect of God. This is what 16:1 means when it explains that they \u201cdied when they drew too close to the presence of the LORD\u201d\u2014literally, to the \u201cface\u201d of the Lord. It was in restricting their offering to \u201cthe face\u201d that they died.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Nadab and Abihu each took his fire pan. My understanding is that they did what they did while Moses and Aaron were blessing the people (Abarbanel). They offered before the LORD alien fire, which He had not enjoined upon them. More precisely, \u201cwhich He had enjoined upon them not\u201d to do\u2014\u201cYou shall not offer alien incense on it\u201d (Exod. 30:9)\u2014and had not in the interim permitted for some special purpose (Bekhor Shor). What made the fire they \u201ctook\u201d alien was that it was not taken from the right place on the outer altar, but from elsewhere (Gersonides). The problem was that, though the High Priest may offer incense whenever he wishes, ordinary priests only do so when chosen for it by lot; and no priest does so twice in his lifetime. On this inaugural day of all days, the High Priest was supposed to perform each part of the ritual, and especially the incense ritual, which was the most spiritual. Perhaps they considered themselves like the High Priest, having been personally anointed with the same oil as he. But in any case it was a criminal offense for two priests to offer incense simultaneously (Abarbanel). Nadab and Abihu understood from Exod. 29:38\u201330:8 that incense was to be offered every day after the regular sacrifice, because the Shekhinah would rest upon it. Since the Shekhinah had appeared now, they assumed that they were supposed to offer incense now too (Sforno). And laid incense on it. All incense offerings involve fire; it was in fact the incense, not the fire, that was \u201calien,\u201d meaning that it was private rather than public (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:2\u20133<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why did Nadab and Abihu\u2014two apparently healthy and wholesome individuals\u2014die when and where they did (v. 2)? Since the Sages have propounded so many contradictory and unsatisfactory explanations, there is nothing improper in our questioning them.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Fire came forth. R. Eliezer says, \u201cThe only reason Aaron\u2019s sons died is that they issued legal rulings in the presence of their teacher, Moses.\u201d R. Ishmael says, \u201cThey went into the sanctuary drunk.\u201d (Note that, after their death, the remaining priests are warned not to do this.) Leviticus Rabbah explains R. Ishmael\u2019s reasoning with the following parable: A king found a member of his retinue loitering at the entrance to a shop. Without saying a word, he chopped off his head and appointed another in his place. We do not know why the king killed the original one except from what he told the new one: \u201cDon\u2019t go into that shop!\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Fire came forth from the LORD and consumed them. This is the event previously described in 9:24. The burning of the offering and of Aaron\u2019s sons took place as part of a single event in which \u201cfire came forth from before the LORD.\u201d Just when Aaron\u2019s sons took this unwanted fire to the inner altar, fire came forth from before the Lord to burn the incense there. It struck Aaron\u2019s sons and they died. Then the fire came forth from the Tent to the outer altar, where it consumed the offering. See my comment to Exod. 19:8 for other examples of a single event being narrated in two different verses.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They died at the instance of the LORD. Literally, \u201cbefore the Lord.\u201d They had thought they were doing something that would be acceptable before Him.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Fire came forth from the LORD and consumed them. Measure for measure\u2014they sinned with fire and were punished by fire (Hizkuni). The Exalted One inflicted this miraculous punishment upon them for treating such an important ritual so casually, preventing it from having its desired effect and, what is worse, influencing all who would follow after them to treat this ritual with equal disrespect (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
This is what the LORD meant when He said. Where did he say this? \u201cThere I will meet with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified by My Glory [kevodi]\u201d (Exod. 29:43). Do not read it as kevodi but as kevudai, \u201cthose through whom I am glorified.\u201d Moses said to Aaron, \u201cAaron, my brother, I knew in advance that the Tabernacle would be consecrated by the death of those with whom God was most intimate. I presumed it would be me or you. Now I see that they were greater than you or I.\u201d And Aaron was silent. He received a reward for this silence. And what was it? That a divine utterance came to him privately. For the prohibition of wine in vv. 9\u201311 was spoken to him alone. Those near to Me. Those whom I have chosen to serve Me. I \u2026 gain glory before all the people. When the Holy One metes out justice to the righteous, He makes Himself awesome and exalted\u2014if He treats the righteous this way, how much more so will He exact justice from the wicked! \u201cYou are awesome, O God, in Your holy places\u201d (Ps. 68:36). Do not read it as mimmikdashekha, \u201cin Your holy places,\u201d but as mimmekuddashekha, \u201cthrough those consecrated to You.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Then Moses said to Aaron. As soon as Aaron heard what had happened, he immediately wanted to drop the sacrificial service and mourn over his sons. But Moses told him, \u201cDo not mourn, do not weep, and do not stop the service. For what I am telling you is what the LORD meant when He said: \u2018Through those near to Me I show Myself holy\u2019\u2014\u2018through the High Priests, who come near to Me to serve Me, I wish to be sanctified. I do not want them to profane My name and My service.\u2019 For the Holy One told me, \u2018The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not bare his head or rend his vestments. He shall not go in where there is any dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother. He shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his God\u2019 [21:10\u201312].\u201d (Remember that the Torah is not written in chronological order.) \u201cIf to go outside the sanctuary during the service is to profane it, then one who does not go outside sanctifies it. So you must not leave the service, for you are the High Priest, and you must not leave and profane the sanctuary. Rather, let the Holy One and His service be sanctified at your hand.\u201d And gain glory before all the people. This is the glory of the Shekhinah\u2014that one sees his sons dead and sets aside his grief in the service of his Creator. And Aaron was silent. That is, he was silent about his grief, neither crying nor mourning. We find something similar when God killed Ezekiel\u2019s wife: \u201cO mortal, I am about to take away the delight of your eyes from you through pestilence; but you shall not lament or weep or let your tears flow. Sigh in silence; observe no mourning for the dead\u201d (Ezek. 24:16\u201317). Aaron\u2019s silence too implies refraining from the weeping and mourning he would have wished to do. This is the correct explanation of the true meaning of the text. The rabbinic legend in which Moses is speaking comfortingly to Aaron and telling him that Nadab and Abihu were even more intimate with God than Moses and Aaron themselves is not the straightforward sense of the text. Did the Holy One really inform Moses, \u201cMake Me a Tabernacle, and on that day the greatest among you will die\u201d?<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
This is what the LORD meant when He said. More literally, \u201cThis is what the Lord spoke\u201d (see OJPS). \u201cHe told me long ago that He would demonstrate His holiness through those closest to Him.\u201d The logic is the same as we find in Amos: \u201cYou alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth\u2014that is why I will call you to account for all your iniquities\u201d (Amos 3:2). When I show My holiness through them, I shall be respected and gain glory before all the people. A better English word than \u201cglory\u201d here would be \u201crespect.\u201d \u201cI shall gain all the people\u2019s respect, and they will fear Me.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
This is what the LORD meant when He said. Rashi\u2019s comment is taken from a midrash. If this interpretation is correct, then \u201cit shall be sanctified by My Glory\u201d (Exod. 29:43) means \u201cIt [the sanctuary] shall be holy in the eyes of all the people, and by the death of those through whom I am glorified they shall know that I am dwelling in it.\u201d Ibn Ezra too understands that Moses is indeed referring to a divine utterance to him, not recorded in the Torah, in which He explained this aspect of His ways to him. In my opinion the text can be explained straightforwardly without recourse to this assumption. OJPS translates more literally: \u201cThis is it that the LORD spoke.\u201d \u201cSpoke\u201d is different from \u201csaid\u201d; Moses did not mean that God had said a specific thing, but that He had decided\u2014spoken His decrees, decided His thoughts, resolved upon His ways. \u201cSpoke\u201d can mean all these things in Biblical Hebrew. When Ecclesiastes says, \u201cI spoke to myself\u201d (Eccles. 1:16), he means, \u201cI had the following thought.\u201d Like the verb dibber, \u201cspeak,\u201d the related noun davar can also mean\u2014in addition to \u201cword\u201d\u2014a \u201cthing,\u201d a \u201cmatter\u201d: \u201cThis is the reason why Joshua had the circumcision performed\u201d (Josh. 5:4); \u201cIt must be because of the incident of the money replaced in our bags the first time that we have been brought inside, as a pretext to attack us\u201d (Gen. 43:18). With the verb, as in our verse, we find \u201cHere is Rebekah before you; take her and go, and let her be a wife to your master\u2019s son, as the LORD has spoken\u201d (Gen. 24:51)\u2014that is, \u201cas the Lord has decreed.\u201d More to the point of our story, we find 1 Kings 16:34, \u201cHiel the Bethelite fortified Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of Abiram his first-born, and set its gates in place at the cost of Segub his youngest, in accordance with the words that the LORD had decreed through Joshua son of Nun.\u201d What Moses is saying, then, is as follows: This incident reveals to us God\u2019s decree. Through those near to Me I show Myself holy means that \u201cthey must not break through to My holiness.\u201d And I gain glory\u2014better, \u201chonor\u201d or \u201crespect\u201d\u2014before all the people means that \u201cthey must treat My dwelling place with respect.\u201d And Aaron was silent. He had been weeping and moaning, but now became silent. Or perhaps, as \u201cShed tears like a torrent day and night! Give yourself no respite, give your eyes no rest\u201d (Lam. 2:18) suggests, the same verb may mean not that he became silent but simply that he stopped crying.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
This is what the LORD meant when He said. No one has yet explained this phrase correctly. I believe Moses was referring to Exod. 19:24, \u201clet not the priests or the people break through to come up to the LORD, lest He break out against them.\u201d This is the precise command violated by Nadab and Abihu (Abarbanel). Through those near to Me. Through those who try to draw near to Me intellectually and spiritually in such a way as to be able to convey to the rest of the people the ineffable quality of My reality. When the priests whom I have chosen to draw near to Me fail to do so in the proper way, they withhold from themselves and from the people fire marvelous benefit I intended for them (Gersonides). Moses was telling him, \u201cDo not be surprised, brother Aaron, that those who serve God most closely are in the most danger. Those who fight on the front lines are the most likely to die\u201d (Abarbanel). And Aaron was silent. He was stunned into silence, \u201cstill as stone\u201d (Exod. 15:16), inconsolable (Abarbanel). He was consolable by God\u2019s showing Himself holy through their deaths (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:4\u20135<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Uzziel the uncle of Aaron. Uzziel was the brother of Aaron\u2019s father, Amram; see Exod. 6:18. Carry your kinsmen away. It is like telling someone, \u201cClear this corpse away from before the bride, so as not to interfere with the celebration.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Carry your kinsmen away from the front of the sanctuary. Some say that Nadab and Abihu had offered their incense in front of the sacrificial altar, in the courtyard, where Mishael and Elzaphan (who were Levites but not priests) were allowed to go. Others say that they offered it on the incense altar inside the Tent of Meeting, and that Mishael and Elzaphan indeed brought them out from there, from the Tent. The word translated \u201cthe sanctuary\u201d simply means \u201cthe holy,\u201d and (as I have explained in my comment to 6:23) this word can be used comparatively. Here, it refers to the courtyard where the Levites could enter, in contrast to the camp of the ordinary Israelites.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Come forward and carry your kinsmen away. I have found in the Sifra the following: \u201cR. Eliezer says, The sons of Aaron died outside the Tabernacle, where the Levites are permitted to enter. For \u2018they came forward and carried them out of the camp by their tunics\u2019 [v. 5]. Why then does the text state that they died \u2018before the Lord\u2019 [v. 2], that is, inside the Tabernacle? The angel struck them there and brought them outside. R. Akiva says, \u2018before the Lord\u2019 shows that they died inside. How then could their cousins, who were only Levites, carry them out by their tunics? They cast metal hooks, snagged them, and dragged them outside.\u201d The basic assumption here is that, though the priests too are forbidden to enter the sanctuary except at service times\u2014so that there is no casual going in and out\u2014nonetheless they may enter for purposes of repair or, more to the point, of removing impurity. (The Sifra explains this too, elsewhere.) If there are no priests, Levites may enter for such purposes. If there is no one who is ritually clean, one who is unclean may enter. If there is no one who is unblemished, one who is blemished may enter. And on this particular day, there were no priests who could perform this task. For Aaron and his two remaining sons were commanded not to make themselves unclean by interacting with the corpses. But since it was possible to drag them out by hooks, the Levites were not after all permitted to enter. For R. Eliezer, the fact that the text says that they \u201cdrew near\u201d (OJPS) indicates that the corpses must already have been outside.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Come forward. Rather, \u201cDraw near\u201d (OJPS)\u2014\u201cdo not be afraid of God\u2019s wrath\u201d (Hizkuni). To a place outside the camp. To the place where the sin offerings of the community and of the High Priest were burnt; there they should be buried (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
By their tunics. \u201cTheir\u201d tunics being those of the dead brothers, thus proving that their garments were not burned, only their souls\u2014by two tendrils of flame that entered their nostrils.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
By their tunics. They were dressed in their priestly vestments. Moses commanded that they be carried \u201coutside the camp\u201d (v. 4), where their vestments could be removed and they could be dressed in shrouds and buried, as was the custom with everyone who died in the wilderness. Meanwhile, the sacred vestments could be purified and reused by other priests.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
By their tunics. \u201cTheir\u201d tunics means those of Nadab and Abihu, not of Mishael and Elzaphan; only priests have tunics, Levites do not (Hizkuni). There was no need to remove the tunics first, since they had already been made unclean (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:6\u20137<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Do not bare your heads. These next two verses Moses addressed to Eleazar and Ithamar: \u201cEven though you are ordinary priests and not commanded to avoid mourning as is the High Priest, on this day your status is the same as that of the High Priest in future years. And why? Because the LORD\u2019S anointing oil is upon you. You are being anointed anew, along with your father the High Priest, \u2018on whose head the anointing oil has been poured\u2019 [21:10], and at this moment all the same rules [of 21:10\u201312] apply to you as well as to him.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do not bare your heads. Rather, \u201cDo not let your hair grow out.\u201d We learn from this that one who is in mourning must not cut his hair. \u201cBut you\u2014do not show signs of mourning that would interfere with God\u2019s celebration.\u201d Lest you die. If you do let your hair grow out, you will die. But your kinsmen, all the house of Israel shall bewail. We learn from this that when the learned are grieving all Jews are to share in their sorrow.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not bare your heads. Some say that the Hebrew expression means to let one\u2019s hair grow out, as OJPS seems to have taken it. Do not rend your clothes. The Hebrew word translated \u201crend\u201d is not the one that is ordinarily used; rather it is the one found in the instructions about the leper: \u201chis clothes shall be rent, his head shall be left bare\u201d (13:45). Many think the expression used about the head there and in our verse means that it is to be \u201ccovered,\u201d and some think (as does NJPS) that it means to be \u201cleft bare.\u201d But the words of tradition, followed by OJPS, are the truth. Lest you die and anger strike the whole community. Note how OJPS (correctly) repeats \u201cnot\u201d twice, though it appears in the Hebrew only once; NJPS has nicely mimicked the original Hebrew syntax by having \u201clest\u201d apply to both parts of the phrase. (They did not achieve this in their translation of Prov. 30:3, where the same Hebrew syntax occurs.) Your kinsmen, all the house of Israel. Literally, \u201cyour brothers\u201d (see OJPS). I allude to this difficulty in my commentary to the weekly portion of Re\u2019eh.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not bare your heads. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But the practice of mourners not cutting their hair does not derive from this passage\u2014it is a rabbinic ruling. The connection is simply a midrashic reading of the biblical verse. At most, the laws of the first day of mourning (after burial) may be a ruling given to Moses at Sinai, which we have learned (as the ge\u2019onim think) from the laws of mourning before the burial. The essence of the biblical text is a specific warning to the sons of Aaron. Now, hear its interpretation: Our Sages long ago said that the High Priest may offer sacrifice even in the stage of mourning before the corpse is buried\u2014but he may not eat of the sacrifice. Moreover, he is forbidden to let his hair grow out, to rend his clothes, and to become ritually impure. This we learn from 21:10\u201311, \u201cThe priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not let his hair go loose or rend his vestments. He shall not go in where there is any dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother.\u201d Since he may offer sacrifice, however, the text there continues, \u201cHe shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his God\u201d (21:12) by just dropping his sacred tasks; it would be a profanation of the Lord. (Of course the same rule taught here applies to any priest who would drop a sacred task and go off about his own business.) As High Priest, Aaron was permitted to offer sacrifice even under these circumstances, but his sons, ordinary priests, were not. They were permitted, perhaps even obligated, to let their hair grow and rend their clothes. But under the unique circumstances of the \u201ceighth day\u201d ceremony Moses forbade them to do either of these things, or even to mourn, and ordered Mishael and Elzaphan to handle the corpses. But your kinsmen, all the house of Israel, shall bewail the burning that the LORD has wrought. Your kinsmen, but not you!\u2014The reason for it all was to prevent them from tainting God\u2019s celebration with sorrow. Moses was so strict about this that he imposed upon them the threat of the death penalty if they were to allow their private grief to impinge on the celebration in any way. It may even be that Moses was given this command by the Almighty (though it is not written in the Torah), or perhaps he learned it from what he had earlier been commanded to tell them, \u201cYou shall remain at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting day and night for seven days, keeping the LORD\u2019S charge\u2014that you may not die\u201d (8:35)\u2014for \u201cthe LORD\u2019S charge\u201d extended to the eighth day as well. The One who spoke and the world came into being knew perfectly well that the sons of Aaron would be mourners on the eighth day; nonetheless, He commanded that they not leave the sanctuary. This clearly entailed that they not become ritually unclean or mourn in any way. Though the sons of Aaron were priests of ordinary rank, during the eight days of their consecration they were invested temporarily with the rank of \u201cthe priest anointed for war\u201d who, like the High Priest, may show no signs of mourning. Unlike the High Priest, however, he may not offer sacrifice before the corpse is buried, and the sons of Aaron did not do this either (as the Sages interpret this story; see Rashi\u2019s comment to \u201cSee, this day they brought their sin offering,\u201d v. 19). Notice that, despite everything that happened, not a single step of the ordination procedure was omitted: the sacrifices had already been offered, and after sunset (when it was permissible) they ate what needed to be eaten. It is possible, by the way, that Eleazar and Ithamar actually held this rank of \u201cthe priest anointed for war\u201d throughout their lives, having been anointed as priests rather than simply born into the priesthood. (See my comment to 8:35.)<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not bare your heads and do not rend your clothes. They are not to let their hair grow out nor rend their clothes, because the priests may not enter to serve God looking disheveled (Gersonides). Lest \u2026 anger strike the whole community. If you mourn, the Holy One will be so angry that He will not accept the sacrifices which you have made on the community\u2019s behalf (Hizkuni). But your kinsmen, all the house of Israel, shall bewail the burning that the LORD has wrought. For two great, righteous men were gone from them (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:7<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Again, see my comment to 8:35; T. Sanh. 4:1 makes the same point, that the command not to go outside applies when the priests are serving. This is all very well for Aaron, who was offering sacrifice, but how could it apply to his sons, who, being in the first stage of mourning, were not offering sacrifice on this day? Perhaps we should say that Moses issued this as a general command, and they understood that it did not apply to them on that particular day, but would when they returned afterward to full service. That would explain why this verse (unlike 8:35) simply says \u201cDo not go outside\u201d without saying \u201cuntil evening\u201d or \u201cuntil tomorrow.\u201d It was an ongoing command, that they not leave the Tent in the middle of the priestly ritual. Alternatively, this really might have been a command for that day alone\u2014that, like their father, they stay inside out of respect for the celebration\u2014in which case the ongoing commandment for all priests through the ages is that given in 21:12. Indeed, the Sifra takes the behavior of Eleazar and Ithamar as an indication of how the relatives of one who is put to death by a human court are expected to act. As we are told at the end of B. Sanh. 46a, the relatives of the executed man must come to greet the judges and the witnesses\u2014as if to say, \u201cWe have no hard feelings toward you. You have done true justice.\u201d Here too, Aaron and his sons stood before God as the maidens of Zion were to stand before Solomon \u201con his wedding day, on his day of bliss\u201d (Song 3:11). The divine \u201cwedding day\u201d was the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai; the \u201cday of bliss\u201d was the day when the Tent of Meeting came into service.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For the LORD\u2019S anointing oil is upon you. And you must treat it with respect and holiness (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:8\u20139<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the prohibition of wine (v. 9) intrude on the story of the deaths of Aaron\u2019s sons?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:8<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Aaron. For he was a prophet\u2014though some say the Lord spoke to him via Moses, as in Isa. 7:10, \u201cThe LORD spoke further to Ahaz,\u201d where (as Isa. 7:4 makes clear) the Lord is speaking to Ahaz through Isaiah and not directly. Here, God is warning Aaron that he and his remaining sons must take care not to die as the two older sons had.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Drink no wine or other intoxicant. That is, drink no wine to the point of intoxication. When you enter the Tent of Meeting. This verse specifies only entering the Tent of Meeting. How do I know that the same rule applies when they approach the altar? That the Tent and the altar are to be treated the same in this respect is evident from Exod. 30:20, \u201cWhen they enter the Tent of Meeting they shall wash with water, that they may not die; or when they approach the altar to serve, to turn into smoke an offering by fire to the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Other intoxicant. That is, an intoxicant made from something \u201cother\u201d than grapes, such as wheat or honey or dates. Alcohol of any kind confuses those who drink it, destroying their capacity for rational thought.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Drink no wine or other intoxicant. The implication of Rashi\u2019s comment is that it is all right if he drank moderately or diluted his wine with water. He also presumes that the command applies only to wine, and not to any other alcoholic drink, as is the case with the nazirite. This understanding is correct, in my opinion. Maimonides, however, understands that the verse is to be interpreted straightforwardly, as do the English translations. In either case, the point of this commandment\u2019s being given now is that a priest should not, while drunk, have improper thoughts through which he would come to die as did Aaron\u2019s sons. It may be that Nadab and Abihu themselves, as the midrash has it, died because they were intoxicated. Not that this was forbidden them, for the command had not yet been given. But their drunkenness led them to make the mistake that I have described in my comment to v. 1. When you enter the Tent of Meeting. See Rashi\u2019s comment, which is taken from the Sifra. It would seem that, on the basis of the comparison with the washing of the hands in Exod. 30:20, the priest should be subject to death only if he enters the Tent or approaches the altar to serve, that is, only if he actually performs some priestly ritual while drunk or unwashed or, for that matter, while not wearing the priestly vestments. This is certainly how the Sifra understands it. All of these are subsumed under the expression \u201cwhen you enter\u201d because all of the priestly rituals were performed either inside the Tent or on the altar, which was at the entrance to the Tent. Simply \u201centering\u201d the Tent was not at issue. (Maimonides thinks that this is prohibited, but that it is not punishable by death.) For all time. The Sifra understands this phrase somewhat differently, as \u201ca comprehensive decree,\u201d adding all the other acts of priestly ritual (scooping out a handful of the meal offering, pinching off the head of a sacrificial bird, and so forth) to that of turning the sacrifice into smoke, which is specifically mentioned in Exod. 30:20. They also apply this \u201ccomprehensive\u201d aspect to the location of the action\u2014not just in the Tent of Meeting (as in the Exodus verse) but also at the sanctuary in Shiloh and the Temple in Jerusalem. Interestingly, the warning against intoxication does not apply to rituals performed at the \u201chigh places,\u201d where the rituals were not performed by priests.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Drink no wine or other intoxicant. Which, as mourners, they would (according to Prov. 31:6) otherwise have ordinarily been given: \u201cGive strong drink to the hapless and wine to the embittered\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Moses was afraid that, since he had forbidden Aaron and his sons to express their grief by mourning, they might try to drown their sorrows with drink (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:10\u201314<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since distinguishing \u201cbetween the sacred and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean\u201d (v. 10) and teaching the Israelites (v. 11) is the priests\u2019 job at all times, why are they prohibited from drinking only \u201cwhen you enter the Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 9)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:10\u201311<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You must distinguish \u2026 and you must teach. As our Sages have said, one who is intoxicated may not teach.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For you must distinguish between the sacred and the profane. Clearly one who is intoxicated cannot do this; if he performs a priestly ritual nonetheless, it is invalid.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For you must distinguish. OJPS translates more literally, but NJPS has the sense. You are the High Priest and must be able to distinguish between a place that is holy and one that is profane. It may refer as well to distinguishing between a time that is holy and one that is profane. Between the unclean and the clean. Whether land animal, water creature, or bird. That is why this chapter is followed in ch. 11 by the rules about which animals may be eaten and which may not. Then follow the rules about ritual purity, which are also a case of distinguishing \u201cbetween the unclean and the clean.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You must teach. And intoxication is forbidden when one is teaching. But in this case it is not a capital offense. The phrase \u201cthat you may not die\u201d (v. 9) applies only to an officiating priest, not to someone who is teaching.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You must teach the Israelites. All the rest of the commandments besides those alluded to in v. 10. Similarly, we find the Israelites commanded \u201cto do exactly as the priests instruct you\u201d (Deut. 24:8).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You must teach. No one, priest or ordinary Israelite, ought to teach when he is drunk. But the priests are specifically forbidden to do so because a priest who makes a mistake in teaching can do much more damage (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
His remaining sons. Those who had been \u201cleft over\u201d by death. This shows that they too had earned death as a result of the Golden Calf incident, when \u201cthe LORD was angry enough with Aaron to have destroyed him \u2026\u201d (Deut. 9:20). For \u201cdestruction\u201d implies the elimination of all one\u2019s children: \u201cYet I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose stature was like the cedar\u2019s and who was stout as the oak, destroying his boughs above and his trunk below!\u201d (Amos 2:9). But Moses\u2019 prayer\u2014\u201c\u2026 I also interceded for Aaron at that time\u201d (Deut. 9:20)\u2014was partially successful. Take the meal offering. Even though you are in the immediate first stage of mourning, when ordinarily one is forbidden contact with sacred things. The meal offerings involved were those of ordination (9:17) and that of Nahshon son of Amminadab (Num. 7:12\u201317). Eat it unleavened. We already know from 6:9 that meal offerings were to be eaten unleavened. So why was it necessary to say this? Since both of these were meal offerings of a kind that would never be brought again, Moses had to explain that the rules for ordinary meal offerings applied to these as well.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Take the meal offering. Once a handful of it has been offered up (9:17), no one but those who are consecrated should eat the remainder of it. You must begin the process of eating that which is the priests\u2019 due \u201cfrom the LORD\u2019S offerings by fire\u201d (v. 13), that is, from any meal offering of which part has been turned into smoke for the Lord.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your due, and that of your children. Literally, \u201cyour sons\u201d (see OJPS). For the daughters of the priests do not share in them. For so I have been commanded. This refers to their permission to eat the sacred food while in mourning.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The breast of elevation offering. This is the public offering of well-being. You, and your sons and daughters with you. You and your sons have a share in it through your roles as priests. Your daughters do not share in it, but if you give them some of the breast or thigh they may eat it.\u2014Or perhaps the daughters do have a share?\u2014No, for the verse continues, \u201cThey have been assigned as a due to you and your sons\u201d (see OJPS). In any clean place. As if Aaron\u2019s offerings had been eaten in an unclean place! In fact, Aaron\u2019s offerings (being most holy) of course had to be eaten within the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting. But the public offering, of lesser holiness, could be eaten anywhere within the Israelite camp, which was \u201cclean\u201d in the sense that lepers were excluded from it. From this we derive the rule that sacrifices of lesser holiness could be eaten anywhere in the city of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In any clean place. Even outside the sacred enclosure. For both males and females may eat the breast and the thigh: \u201call the elevation offerings of the Israelites, I give to you, to your sons, and to the daughters that are with you, as a due for all time; everyone of your household who is clean may eat it\u201d (Num. 18:11). The same applies to slaves in your household, whether home born or purchased, and even to a daughter who, being widowed, has moved back home. As a due to you and your children. Just as you eat the thigh and the breast now, your descendants for all time will have the right to take them from every sacrifice of well-being.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:15\u201316<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Together with the fat of fire offering. Actually, the text reads \u201cthe fire offerings of the fats\u201d; but it really means the same as the reversed expression, \u201cthe fats of the fire offerings.\u201d More importantly, the Hebrew does not say \u201ctogether with\u201d the fat, but \u201cupon\u201d the fat. We learn that when they are elevated, the fat is on the bottom. I have explained in my comment to 7:30 how to settle all the verses on this subject so that they do not contradict each other. The thigh of gift offering and the breast of elevation offering. See my comment to Exod. 29:27. The word translated \u201celevation\u201d really refers to back-and-forth motion; \u201cgift\u201d literally refers to motion up and down. Since both of them were moved up and down and waved back and forth, I don\u2019t know why each one is described with a separate motion.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Together with the fat of fire offering. Rashi\u2019s explanation, reversing the words, is unnecessary. Rather, as the translations apparently understand, \u201cfire offering\u201d is used descriptively here. It need not refer only to an offering that is completely burnt, as we learn from Deut. 18:1, where the Levites are to live off the \u201cfire offerings\u201d of the Lord. They must present. \u201cThey\u201d being the Israelites mentioned in v. 14. The thigh of gift offering and the breast of elevation offering. See Rashi\u2019s comment. It seems to me that the NJPS translation is indeed correct. Literally, the Hebrew word translated \u201cgift offering\u201d does come from a verb meaning \u201cto raise high,\u201d but this may refer more generally to anything that is especially selected out of a larger group (see 7:14). The thigh of the ordination offering was most certainly selected in such fashion, since together with the bread and fats it went up entirely on high as a gift to the Lord. But this does not make it an \u201celevation\u201d offering or a \u201cheave\u201d offering (see OJPS), for the physical motion in this case merely resulted from its being put up on the altar with the bread and the fats to be turned into smoke. The breast, on the other hand, was indeed \u201cwaved\u201d (see OJPS) before the Lord, and it was this physical motion alone that distinguished it from the rest of the sacrificial flesh and turned it into the special portion to which Moses was entitled. Because the priests\u2019 permanent entitlement to the thigh and the breast took effect on the day of the ordination procedure\u2014they became entitled to the thigh when it was selected as the gift and to the breast when it was elevated before the Lord, the rest of the flesh going to the owners of the animal\u2014they were ever afterward called \u201cthe thigh of gift offering and the breast of elevation offering,\u201d as they had been on the day when the priests became entitled to them. Which are to be elevated as an elevation offering before the LORD so that they may be consecrated before Him as your due and that of your children with you for all time. As NJPS recognizes, this is a relative clause referring to v. 14. It is not the place where this elevation is actually commanded. (That is in 7:30.) But along the way we learn from this verse that the fats are on the bottom when they are elevated.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
As the LORD has commanded. This verse, 9:7, and 2 Sam. 24:19 are the only verses in the Bible that end with this phrase (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Moses inquired about the goat of sin offering. This goat was the additional offering for the first day of the month. For three goats of sin offering were sacrificed on that day: the one mentioned in 9:3, the one offered by Nahshon, and the goat offered on the first day of every month. Of the three, only this one was burnt, and our Sages disagree on exactly why. Some say it was burnt because it was touched by something unclean; others, that it was burnt because, being in a state of mourning, Aaron and his sons\u2014the only ones eligible\u2014could not eat it. (They had relied on Moses\u2019 ruling that they could nonetheless eat the sacrifices specific to that day, but this was the regular ongoing monthly sacrifice.) The Hebrew verb translated \u201cinquired\u201d appears in a double form, for Moses asked two questions: Why was this one burnt? Why were the other two eaten? That is how the Sifra explains it. With Eleazar and Ithamar. Out of respect for Aaron, Moses directed his anger away from him and at his sons. And said. More literally, \u201cto say\u201d\u2014he demanded, \u201cSay something in response to my accusation!\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The goat of sin offering. Our Sages explain that this was the goat offered regularly on the first of every month, the goat of the community and that of Nahshon having already been eaten.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The goat of sin offering. Rashi\u2019s comment to \u201cHad I eaten sin offering today\u201d (v. 19) implies that he agrees with those who think the goat was burnt on account of uncleanness (see his comment here, as well). For if eating at night was permissible, then the fact that Aaron and his sons were in the initial stage of mourning did not matter, and there must have been an issue of uncleanness. Those who think their mourning status did matter, and that was why the goat was burned, must accept the principle that the Torah itself, and not merely a rabbinic decree, forbids such mourners from eating at night as well.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Then Moses inquired. This phrase uses a double verb form, \u05d3\u05e8\u05e9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u2014and these two words are the middle words of the Torah (Masorah). It had already been burned! By others, for Eleazar and Ithamar were of course not permitted to \u201cgo outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 7) on that day. I believe what happened was that, distracted by their grief, they sent the people\u2019s goat of sin offering to be burnt with the calf and the lamb, mistakenly thinking that all three of the people\u2019s offerings were to be treated the same (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:17\u201319<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred area? Did they eat it outside the sacred area? No, they burned it. Moses was asking them if it had been moved outside the enclosure, which would have invalidated it; \u201cfor it is most holy,\u201d and would thus be invalidated if any of it had left the sacred area. They told him it had not, and he replied, \u201cSince it remained in the sacred area, why didn\u2019t you eat it?\u201d He has given it to you to remove the guilt of the community. And the expiation of those who bring the sacrifice does not take effect until the priests eat their share of it. This confirms that the goat in question was that of the monthly offering. For this sacrifice removes the impurity of the sanctuary and its holy accouterments, which was not the purpose of the offerings of the eighth day and of Nahshon.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
To remove the guilt of the community. That is, the impurity of the sanctuary and of the holy things, as explained on B. Shevu. 9\u201310.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In the sacred area. \u201cIn the sacred precinct, in the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (6:19). He has given it to you to remove the guilt of the community. When you eat the sin offering, God removes the guilt of the community. Or perhaps it literally means that \u201cyou [by your actions] remove the guilt,\u201d that is, you make expiation for them.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He has given it to you to remove the guilt of the community and to make expiation for them. Though expiation was already made when the blood was dashed against the altar, it is nonetheless preferable that the priests should also eat their share of the offering (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Since its blood was not brought inside the sanctuary. If it had been, you would have had to burn it: \u201cBut no sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary; any such shall be consumed in fire\u201d (6:23). You should certainly have eaten it. You ought to have eaten it even though you are mourners. As I commanded. As I commanded in the case of the meal offering (v. 12).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Since its blood was not brought inside the sanctuary. As 6:23 tells us with regard to the sin offerings on the inner altar, \u201cno sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary; any such shall be consumed in fire.\u201d But this was a sin offering on the outer altar.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Since its blood was not brought inside the sanctuary. As it would have been with the bulls of the High Priest (4:7) and of the whole community (4:16\u201318), which are brought to atone for their violation of any of the commandments. If you are wondering why the bull of sin offering that was used in the ordination procedure (8:14\u201317) was burnt, and why its blood was not \u201cbrought inside the sanctuary\u201d (that is, sprinkled in front of the curtain or put on the horns of the golden altar inside the Tent), remember that the purpose of this particular bull was to cleanse the altar. So its flesh did not need to be eaten in order to make expiation for anyone. But the he-goat was a sin offering for the people, and the flesh of such an offering is supposed to be eaten by the priest.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Aaron spoke to Moses. \u201cSpoke\u201d rather than \u201csaid\u201d implies an element of confrontation, as in Num. 21:5, \u201cThe people spoke against God and against Moses.\u201d How is it that Moses directed his anger against Eleazar and Ithamar, but it was Aaron who talked back? It was out of respect for Aaron that his sons did not reply. They thought, \u201cIt is not right that we respond to Moses in front of our father, nor would it be right for us, his students, to talk back to him, our teacher.\u201d But do not think it is because Eleazar did not know how to respond. From Num. 31:21, \u201cEleazar the priest said to the troops who had taken part in the fighting, \u2018This is the ritual law that the LORD has enjoined upon Moses,\u2019 \u201d we see that Eleazar was perfectly capable, when he wished, of speaking before Moses and before the tribal chieftains. I found all this in Sifrei Zuta. See, this day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD. The translations are incorrect. This is a question: \u201cHave they brought today\u2019s offerings?\u201d But what exactly is he saying here? Moses must have asked him, \u201cPerhaps they dashed the blood against the altar while in their state of mourning, which would profane the offering?\u201d Aaron replied, \u201cDid they, the ordinary priests, bring the offerings? No! I brought the offerings, for I am the High Priest and am permitted to bring offerings while I am a mourner.\u201d And such things have befallen me! Again the translations are inexact. He is saying, \u201cEven had the dead men been not my sons but any such relatives for whom I would be obligated to mourn\u201d (like the ones listed in 21:1\u20133 for whom a priest is required to defile himself through contact with the dead)\u2014then had I eaten sin offering today (eating it at night is not an issue, for burial, during the day, ends the first stage of mourning), Would the LORD have approved? Even though you may have heard that it was all right for mourners to eat the sacred offerings unique to this day, you had no business applying the same rule to the regular offerings.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
This day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering. These are the offerings described in 9:2, \u201cTake a calf of the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish.\u201d Though Moses said this to Aaron alone, we see from 9:9 and 9:12 that Aaron\u2019s sons assisted him with the blood ritual of these offerings. This is what Aaron is saying to Moses: \u201cWhy are you angry at my sons? This very day my sons and I brought the offerings by which we were consecrated to the service of God, and in the middle of this great occasion a great trouble has come upon us, and such things have befallen me! How could I sit down and eat the standard offering on such a day, when our celebration has been tarnished?\u201d It would be like \u201cthe bride so shameless that she betrayed her husband right under the wedding canopy.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Would the LORD have approved? The interrogative ha- used here is most unusually followed by a dagesh in the next letter, which would be appropriate not for the interrogative but for the definite article, which is not ordinarily found on a verb, but is sometimes used (e.g., Ruth 2:6; Ezek. 26:17; 1 Chron. 29:17) as a relative pronoun. That would make the correct translation here not a question but a clause: \u201cwhich the Lord would approve of.\u201d Similarly, the Hebrew word translated \u201chad I eaten\u201d is not a conditional (which would be accented on the last syllable; compare, e.g., Hosea 12:11 with Exod. 25:22) but a simple past\u2014\u201cI ate.\u201d What Aaron is saying is this: \u201cMy sons who were burnt brought their sin offering and their burnt offering. [\u201cTheir\u201d offerings were the calf and the ram of 9:2.] Since such things have befallen me\u201d\u2014by which he refers to his distress and his preoccupation with the death of his sons\u2014\u201cI could not eat the entire sin offering today, but I have eaten enough so that the Lord would approve\u201d\u2014that is, he ate just enough to fulfill his obligation. But those who have handed down our tradition believe that it is the interrogative ha- being used here, though if so it is grammatically an extremely strange form. Admittedly, it would be a strange form even according to the interpretation I have offered, for the definite article is not used anywhere else in the Bible with a future tense verb, as it would be here. With regard to \u201chad I eaten,\u201d though (as I said) the accent is wrong for a conditional, we do sometimes find it used this way (e.g., Prov. 30:9). If the translations, following the traditional interpretation, are indeed correct, then the logic is as follows: \u201cI am in the stage of mourning between death and burial, when it is improper to eat a sin offering.\u201d See similarly \u201cI have not eaten of it while in mourning\u201d (Deut. 26:14).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
This day they brought their sin offering. Rashi\u2019s comment identifying this as a question follows the discussion on B. Zev. 101a. But I find this surprising. When you stop to think about it, all the sacrifices were offered before Aaron\u2019s sons died, for Aaron \u201cstepped down after offering the sin offering, the burnt offering, and the offering of well-being\u201d (9:22). Then he and Moses went into the Tent and prayed, after which fire came forth and consumed the offerings. Only then did Nadab and Abihu make their incense offering. Perhaps Moses did not actually see what Eleazar and Ithamar had done, and he was afraid that, having found that the blood of this goat had not yet been dashed against the altar, they had gone ahead and done so while in a state of mourning. Aaron explained to him that it was he who had dashed the blood, so that (since the rule about mourning does not apply to the High Priest), even if it had been done after the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, there was no reason to think that the dashing of the blood would have been invalid. But in fact this was merely a theoretical discussion; none of them did anything while in a state of mourning.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
This day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD. \u201cThey\u201d refers to the Israelite people (Abarbanel). Such things have befallen me! The priests who were to help me eat the sin offering have died (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:20\u201311:2<\/p>\n
Leviticus 10:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He approved. He was not ashamed to admit, \u201cYou are right, I did not hear this about the regular offerings.\u201d But his anger had led him into error.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When Moses heard this, he approved. Moses\u2019 intellect was so focused on higher matters that at times it prevented him from turning his complete attention to more practical, temporal affairs. This was the very reason that he needed Aaron in order to communicate with ordinary people (Gersonides). Moses was delighted at the good sense of his brother Aaron and Aaron\u2019s sons, who had understood and taught so well (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron. The Lord told Moses that he should tell Aaron. Saying to them. Rather, \u201cto say\u201d to them\u2014that is, to Eleazar and Ithamar. Or perhaps it actually means \u201cto say\u201d to the Israelites? But no, v. 2 continues, \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people.\u201d So \u201cthem\u201d must refer to Aaron\u2019s sons, Eleazar and Ithamar.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Saying to them. To Moses and Aaron. This proves that whenever the text has \u201cThe Lord spoke to Moses, saying,\u201d it simply means \u201csaying to Moses\u201d and not (as the Hebrew word could be literally interpreted) that the Lord told Moses \u201cto say\u201d it to someone else. Since the most recent divine utterance, in 10:9\u201311, was spoken to Aaron alone, we are specifically told here that the Lord spoke to \u201cthem\u201d\u2014both Moses and Aaron.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron. This was addressed to Aaron as well as to Moses because Aaron was the priest who would have to teach the Israelites how to distinguish \u201cbetween the unclean and the clean\u201d (10:10).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them: Speak to the Israelite people. There are commandments in these next chapters that pertain both to Israel as a whole and to the priests in particular, but they are of particular importance to the priests. For they are required to guard themselves continually from ritual uncleanness, being always under the necessity of entering the sanctuary and eating the sacred foods. Moreover, if an ordinary Jew were to accidentally violate one of these rules, he would be obligated to bring a sacrifice that would have to be offered for him by the priests! On top of that, the priests have just been commanded, \u201cyou must distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean\u201d (10:10). And of course they must also \u201cteach the Israelites\u201d (10:11) to be careful of these distinctions. That is why this divine utterance came to both Moses and Aaron (or perhaps to Moses that he should tell Aaron), after which both were commanded, \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people\u201d (v. 2). That is why these particular commandments are found in Leviticus, the book of instructions for the priests. The chapter prohibits certain foods as \u201cunclean\u201d so that no one will defile the Tabernacle and its associated sacred things.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron. Since Moses has just (in 10:16) been mistaken with regard to the burning of the goat due to his abstraction, we are reminded (as I noted in my comment to v. 20) that he needed Aaron as his interlocutor with the Israelites (Gersonides). 10:10\u201311 naturally required this chapter to follow, and to be given to both Moses and Aaron. Moses was to write it in the Torah and Aaron was to teach it to Israel (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people. The Torah thus equates all four of them, Moses and Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, with regard to the task of speaking to the Israelites about what they may eat, just as all four of them were equal in their silence about the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, and in their loving acceptance of the divine decree. These are the creatures. OJPS is a bit more precise here: \u201cThese are the living things\u201d and, interpretively, \u201cthis is life.\u201d The Israelites hold fast to God and are therefore destined for the life of the World to Come, so He protected them from impurity by decreeing many commandments for them, while He forbade nothing to the rest of the peoples of the earth. The Tanhuma compares this situation to that of a doctor who goes to visit a patient and finds him in critical condition. \u201cGive him any food he asks for,\u201d the doctor says. He visits another patient and sees that he will live: \u201cLet him eat such and such, but he must avoid this and that.\u201d The fact that our verse says \u201cthese\u201d demonstrates that Moses actually held each and every creature and showed the Israelites which they could eat and which they could not: \u201cThese you may eat of all that live in water\u201d (v. 9); \u201cThese you shall abominate among the birds\u201d (v. 13); \u201cThese shall be unclean for you from among the things that swarm on the earth\u201d (v. 29). These are the creatures that you may eat from among all the land animals. The translations do not follow the Hebrew punctuation. It should be translated as follows: \u201cThese are the creatures that you may eat: From among all the land animals \u2026\u201d \u201cLand animals\u201d are a subset of \u201ccreatures.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
From among all the land animals. Rather, \u201camong all the beasts that are on the earth\u201d (OJPS). But it is further interpreted as follows: There are animals that dwell in the sea as well, but they are governed not by these rules but by those for fish. Thus our verse mentions \u201cearth\u201d or \u201cland\u201d animals to distinguish them from \u201csea\u201d animals. NJPS follows this latter interpretation.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
These are the creatures that you may eat. The word \u201ccreatures,\u201d translated as \u201cliving things\u201d in OJPS, really means \u201chealthy, life-giving things\u201d\u2014the same root is used for the healing of a wound. By contrast, the animals that are not to be eaten are unhealthy (Bekhor Shor). Once the Israelites were stripped of their spiritual finery (see Exod. 33:6), they were no longer worthy of having the Shekhinah rest directly upon them. Moses, however, prayed that it should do so once again through the intermediation of the Tabernacle and its ritual. While they wait for the Shekhinah to rest directly upon them again, they must prepare themselves for the light of eternal life by taking care not to sully themselves with what they eat (Sforno). From among all the land animals. As Rashi points out, in this verse \u201cland animals\u201d are a subset of \u201ccreatures\u201d; but in 17:13 \u201ccreatures\u201d is used in a way that excludes the \u201cland animals\u201d (Kimhi). And in 7:26 we find the opposite usage from our verse\u2014\u201ccreatures\u201d as a subset of \u201cland animals\u201d (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:3<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What exactly is so special about having cloven hoofs and chewing the cud (v. 3) that makes these animals proper to eat and others unfit?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
That has true hoofs. Again OJPS, following Onkelos, is more precise: that \u201cparteth\u201d (i.e., splits) the hoof. With clefts through the hoofs. Here NJPS too (correctly) follows Onkelos. The point is that the hoof must be completely split in two, top to bottom, not (as with some animals) split on top but joined at the bottom. That chews the cud. The Hebrew more literally says \u201cbrings up\u201d the cud, for the animal regurgitates it from the digestive system to crush it and grind it finer. The Hebrew word for \u201ccud,\u201d gerah, may be related to the verb nigrar, the image being that it is \u201cdragged\u201d back into the mouth. The Aramaic translation uses a word that is related to \u201csolve\u201d or \u201csolution,\u201d suggesting that chewing the cud permits the food to be \u201cdissolved\u201d in the mouth. Any animal. The text merely says \u201cany\u201d; NJPS takes \u201canimal\u201d from the phrase \u201camong the beasts\u201d later in the verse, where OJPS, more faithful to the Hebrew, translates it. (NJPS simply omits it there.) Jewish tradition understands that apparently redundant phrases like this lend themselves to midrashic interpretation. In this case, since the phrase could literally be translated \u201cin the beast,\u201d it is understood to permit the consumption of a fetus found inside a slaughtered animal. Such you may eat. The obvious implication is that you may not eat the unclean animals. One who does so is therefore violating both the positive statement of the commandment, given here, and the prohibition, stated in the next verse.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Any animal that has true hoofs. That is, a single \u201cnail\u201d like a shoe, not like the separate nails on the paws of the hare and the daman. With clefts through the hoofs. Instead of a single complete hoof, like those of the horse and the donkey, it is split into two. The straightforward sense of this entire passage\u2014and this in itself is a sufficient response to what the Christians say about it\u2014is that all the animals that the Holy One has forbidden the Jews to eat are disgusting. They heat up the body and harm it in other ways. That is why they are called \u201cunclean.\u201d The most brilliant physicians say exactly this. The Talmud tells us the same, that gentiles who eat bugs become heated. That chews the cud. An animal that chews its cud (gerah) brings its food back up into its throat (gargeret) after eating it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any animal that has true hoofs. OJPS is a little closer to the Hebrew here, which is really using a verbal adjective: \u201cany animal that is hooved.\u201d The same word is found in Ps. 69:32, \u201chorned and hooved.\u201d The whole phrase carries the sense \u201cany animal that is characterized by having hoofs.\u201d With clefts through the hoofs. Again, the translations are not quite precise (though they convey the meaning accurately): \u201ccleaving the hoof.\u201d Chews the cud. The Hebrew word for \u201ccud,\u201d gerah, is related to garon, \u201cthroat.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Any animal that has true hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud. Any animal with both of these characteristics may be eaten; if an animal has just one of them, it may not. It was in fact proper that the general rule be stated here first, even though the text will go on to specify the cud-chewing camel, daman, and hare and the hoofed swine\u2014the only animals on earth that have one of the two characteristics without the other. They are nonetheless prohibited because they do not possess both characteristics. V. 8 then turns the rule about what may be eaten into its opposite, the prohibition of those animals that may not be eaten. Such you may eat. See Rashi\u2019s comment, which follows the Sifra. In the Mishneh Torah, however, Maimonides says that the legal consequence of this phrase is to exclude human flesh: such you may eat, but not a human. The positive command to eat such animals and only such means that one cannot eat human flesh or drink human milk. But we do not find our Sages explaining this verse in that way. The Sifra engages in a discussion proving that \u201cyou shall not eat\u201d of v. 8 is not concerned with human flesh, and perhaps Maimonides deduced from this that it must be our phrase here in v. 3 which prohibits it. But this is not so. In fact, the rabbinic discussion makes clear that there is nothing even in rabbinic law to prohibit the consumption of human blood or milk. If human flesh were prohibited, blood and milk would be prohibited too, by the principle that everything that comes from something unclean is itself unclean. In my opinion, what the rabbinic discussion \u201cpermits\u201d is eating the flesh or blood of a living human. Eating the flesh of a dead human is prohibited; this they learn (through analogy based on linguistic similarities) from the case of the heifer whose neck is to be broken (Deut. 21:1\u20139). Just as no one may use the corpse of that heifer for his private benefit, so too may a human corpse not be used.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Any animal that has true hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud\u2014such you may eat. Even the gentiles do not ordinarily eat animals with neither of these characteristics\u2014proof from their own customs that lack of these traits is offensive (Bekhor Shor). The point is not that the individual animal must have these features; it must come from a species that has them, whether it has them itself or not. The reverse, of course, is true of the species that do not have these features\u2014a particular animal from those species that chances to be born with hoofs and chewing the cud is nonetheless not to be eaten. It is simply a mutation (Gersonides). These traits are of course necessary if the animal is to be clean, but they are not sufficient (Abarbanel). The cud. This Hebrew word, gerah, may be related to the verb muggarim in Mic. 1:4, \u201cLike water cascading down a slope.\u201d Animals that chew the cud bring back up the food and liquid that cascade down to the belly (Hizkuni). As Isa. 11:7 tells us, in the time of the future redemption, \u201cthe lion, like the ox, shall eat straw.\u201d In the meantime, our Sages have noticed that the cud chewers all have horns to protect them against the animals that claw and bite (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:4\u20138<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:4\u20137<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The camel (v. 4), the daman (v. 5), the hare (v. 6), and the swine (v. 7) are all specifically mentioned because each of them possesses one of the two characteristics of a kosher animal. The Hebrew text, as is natural in that language, mentions only the masculine animal, under which the feminine is subsumed. In the case of the hare, however, the feminine form is used. Some say this is because the males are rarely found. Others think that male hares turn into females and vice versa. But the first explanation seems more plausible to me.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:4<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The following. The camel, daman, hare, and swine are all forbidden because none of them has both characteristics of a permitted animal.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:6<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The hare. The Hebrew word is a feminine noun referring to both the males and females of the species (as with the ostrich and the dove). Ordinarily, if both sexes of an animal are known by a single name, it is a masculine noun: e.g., the camel, the daman, the swine, the bear, the turtledove, and so forth. (With the \u201ctwo turtledoves or two pigeons\u201d of 5:7, the Hebrew word for \u201ctwo\u201d reverses the genders, to show that it makes no difference which sex bird one brings.) Don\u2019t object that rabbinic Hebrew does indeed have words for the female camel and the female swine; they created these feminine forms to clarify a point.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The hare. It is said that the male of the species looks like the female, showing no external sign of its sex; this would explain why the Hebrew word for the species is a feminine one (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not eat of their flesh. This would seem to apply only to the specific animals listed. How do I know that I must not eat any other animal that lacks the traits listed in v. 3? By the following logic: If these animals, each of which actually has one of the two traits of clean animals, are prohibited, obviously animals that have neither of the traits must be prohibited. Note, however, that the prohibition refers to their \u201cflesh,\u201d but not to their bones, sinews, horns, or hoofs. You shall not \u2026 touch their carcasses. Further on we are told that none of the priests \u201cshall defile himself for any dead person among his kin\u201d (21:1), implying that an ordinary Jew may do so. Since the impurity of a human corpse is far greater than that of an animal, it is clear that this cannot be a general prohibition for ordinary people to touch animal carcasses. What then does it mean? That they too are forbidden to touch such carcasses during the pilgrimage, when they too must keep ritually clean.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not \u2026 touch their carcasses. Not when you must touch something sacred or eat sacred food, for \u201cwhoever touches them shall be consecrated\u201d (Exod. 30:29)\u2014he must first consecrate himself. That verse refers to the service vessels, but essentially the same expression is used for the altar (Exod. 29:37) and for the flesh of the sin offering (here in 6:20): whoever touches them must be consecrated. That is, he must purify himself before touching them. If he touches a carcass or any of the other things described by the Torah as \u201cunclean,\u201d he must sanctify himself, purify himself, and immerse himself before touching anything sacred.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not \u2026 touch their carcasses. The text does not add that one who does touch such a carcass \u201cshall be unclean until evening\u201d (as in v. 24 and elsewhere), but we know this via tradition. One who deliberately touches such a carcass is to be whipped for violating the prohibition.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not eat of their flesh. Rashi\u2019s comment again follows the Sifra, which comments, \u201cThe positive commandment to eat animals with cleft hoofs that chew the cud is from the text; the prohibition of eating animals with neither characteristic is derived by an a fortiori argument.\u201d But in my opinion the Sifra\u2019s discussion of this topic does not jibe with the talmudic discussion. If the Sifra were correct, one should not be subject to whipping (as is the case) for eating the unclean animals that are not specifically listed, for the rule against eating them is merely an a fortiori argument, and a prohibition must be stated explicitly, not derived by logical argument. In fact, the text states clearly that the reason the daman may not be eaten is that \u201cit has no true hoofs\u201d (v. 5), and that the reason the swine may not be eaten is that \u201cit does not chew the cud\u201d (v. 7). Clearly any animal that has one of these characteristics falls under a similar prohibition, and there is no need whatsoever for an argument a fortiori. The Sifra passage that Rashi cites must rely on the disputed opinion on B. Sanh. 54a that punishment may be inflicted for violation of a prohibition deduced logically. Otherwise it is inexplicable. Touch their carcasses. Halakhically, this is not a prohibition against touching the carcasses but a warning that they are unclean for you. So touching them creates ritual impurity. Anyone who does touch them must be aware that he is unclean and be careful to avoid the sanctuary and consecrated food. The rabbinic statement that one must not touch such an animal during the pilgrimage festivals is again not an outright prohibition but a reminder that doing so would make one unclean at just the moment when one most wants to be pure, preventing one from going up to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage. The saying of the Sages, \u201cA man must purify himself for the pilgrimage festivals\u201d is a rabbinic commandment. There is no commandment or prohibition in the Torah with regard to this\u2014only the commandment to \u201cgo up\u201d to the sanctuary. Or perhaps the Sifra is simply using the biblical verse to teach a lesson, as it often does. They go on: \u201cOthers say: Perhaps one should be whipped for touching such a carcass? No, for the text says, \u2018the following shall make you unclean\u2019 [v. 24]. I might then think the opposite, that one is required to touch such a carcass. But our verse says, \u2018You shall not \u2026 touch their carcasses.\u2019 How is the combination of the two to be understood? That it is discretionary.\u201d And that is in fact the essence of what the Torah is saying here.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not eat of their flesh or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. Since the Exalted One wished Israel to be \u201ca wise and discerning people\u201d (Deut. 4:6), He wished them to avoid the coarse foods that block the intellect from operating. Animals that have claws or round (not split) hoofs use them for fighting, and their flesh is coarse and ill suited as food, while the flesh of animals that chew their cud is more delicate. All of this is explained in Aristotle\u2019s De Animalibus (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:9\u201310<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Similarly, of all the kinds of water creatures, why are only those with fins and scales (v. 9) fit to eat?
\n\u2666 Why must we be told not just once but three times (vv. 10\u201312) that water creatures without fins and scales are \u201can abomination\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why is there no general rule explaining which creatures of the air are to be eaten and which not, as there is for sea and land creatures?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Fins. These are the \u201cwings\u201d that the fish swims with. Scales. These are the inedible plates fixed onto the skin of the fish. The idiom is the same in Hebrew as in English: Goliath \u201chad a bronze helmet on his head, and wore a breastplate of scale armor\u201d (1 Sam. 17:5).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In the seas or in the streams. If we were to pursue the meaning of the text in isolation, without the teachings of Jewish tradition, we would have to say that according to this verse fish in lakes are not permissible to eat. Fins and scales. The Aramaic translator is correct.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Fins and scales. Rashi\u2019s comment follows M. Hul. 3:7, \u201cThe scales must be fixed onto it.\u201d But you should not understand from the language used there that the scales are permanently attached to the skin (let alone the body) of the fish\u2014merely that they do not move as the fins do when the fish swims. They are the round chips whose coating resembles that of a fingernail, which can easily be removed from the fish\u2019s skin by hand or by a knife. Anything that is literally attached to the skin of the fish in such a way that it cannot be removed is not a scale, and in fact a fish that has such a thing is forbidden. As B. \u1e24ul. 66b tells us, \u201cThe scales are a garment.\u201d (See also T. \u1e24ul. 3:9.) Onkelos actually uses the same Aramaic word here as is used to describe the husks of fruit or the bark of trees. The \u201cscale\u201d armor of 1 Sam. 17:5 (which Rashi mentions) demonstrates the same idea. Armor is made of chain mail, and sometimes they make chips to stop up the holes in the links so that even a thin arrow cannot penetrate them. These chips are called \u201cscales.\u201d Jonathan b. Uzziel in his Aramaic translation of the Samuel verse indicates that the scales on Goliath\u2019s armor were made out of stiff leather. They do the very same thing today. Understand this.
\nThe reason that the signs of an edible fish are fins and scales is that the fish who possess them always live in the highest, clearest waters, where they obtain their growth from the air that enters such waters. They therefore have some internal heat protecting them against an imbalance of the humors just as wool, hair, and nails do for humans and land animals. Sea creatures that lack fins and scales always dwell in the murky depths, where the pressure is such that they cannot protect themselves at all. They are therefore of a cold, clinging, potentially deadly humor. The same may be found in shallower waters as well, e.g., in stagnant ponds.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
These you may eat of all that live in water. They are not identified by name because they are hidden from the eye of man (Hizkuni). The highest life forms are those that walk on land, followed by those that fly. But since the Torah found no specific characteristics by which to identify the birds that may be eaten, it lists the fish first (Gersonides). In water, whether in the seas or in the streams. \u201cWater\u201d is the general term; \u201cseas\u201d refers to salt water and \u201cstreams\u201d to sweet water (Gersonides). Anything \u2026 that has fins and scales. Again, the meaning is \u201canything that comes from a species that has fins and scales,\u201d even if the particular fish for some reason does not have them (Gersonides). It is not, as some think, where such fish live that matters; it is the fact that they have fins and scales that keeps their bodies clean and fresh (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Swarming things. The Hebrew word always implies something so small and close to the ground as to only be visible by its skittering back and forth.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All the swarming things of the water. These are the tiny animals that are created from water. All the other living creatures that are in the water. These are the creatures that reproduce sexually.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Among all the swarming things of the water and among all the other living creatures that are in the water. Ibn Ezra describes the \u201cswarming things\u201d as the tiny creatures that are created from water, and the \u201cother living creatures\u201d as those generated sexually. In my opinion, the term \u201cswarming\u201d is a general term for fish (since the word \u201cswarming\u201d always implies movement), and the \u201cother living creatures\u201d are those water creatures that have legs and walk like land animals. In any case, we see that there is a single rule for both kinds. \u201cLiving creatures\u201d is more literally \u201canimal souls,\u201d which the Sifra interprets midrashically to say that \u201canimal\u201d refers to the ordinary creatures of the sea and \u201csoul\u201d to mermaids. They explain that one might think mermaids make the interior of a tent impure as would a corpse; this verse, however, makes clear that they are an abomination only as food.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:11\u201313<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
An abomination for you they shall remain. They shall remain an abomination even in the smallest amount, as long as there is enough to taste. You shall not eat of their flesh. But their fins and bones are not prohibited. You shall abominate their carcasses. This apparent repetition has the purpose of adding that even gnats that are no longer \u201cin\u201d the water\u2014having been filtered out of it\u2014are forbidden.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
An abomination for you they shall remain. The Hebrew text says simply \u201cthey shall be.\u201d Once v. 10 has called them \u201can abomination for you,\u201d v. 11 now comes to explain the implication of that phrase, which is: You shall not eat of their flesh. Note, by the way, that fish are referred to here as \u201cflesh.\u201d When our Sages excluded fish from the category of \u201cflesh\u201d on B. Ned. 54b, they were following the custom of their day.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall abominate their carcasses. I am amazed at Rashi\u2019s comment. The \u201cgnats\u201d he mentions come from wine. They fly in the air and land on the earth, and are in fact forbidden from the moment that they fly (see B. \u1e24ul. 67a); they need not first \u201cswarm\u201d upon the earth. In fact, the species described there is the mosquito, which is bred in wine, as we learn from the legend of Titus the wicked. Gnats are a species that is hidden in water and must be spooned out of it. However, at one point in Rashi\u2019s Talmud commentary he writes, \u201cRed gnats are a kind of wingless mosquito, like the tiny gnats that grow on the edges of our wine casks. Like them, these too are created from water.\u201d Perhaps what he meant with regard to our biblical verse is simply an insect species that has no wings and that cannot be removed from water except by straining it. Rashi seems to call both species by the same French word. The main point is that these are insects that do not creep on the earth. They are water creatures, and not land vermin.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Everything in water that has no fins and scales. What if the fish loses its fins and scales when it is brought up onto dry land? The repetition here shows that, as long as it had them when it was in the water, it is permitted, even though it loses them when it comes up onto dry land.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Everything in water that has no fins and scales. This apparent repetition actually extends the ruling beyond the seas and streams of v. 9 to all bodies of water.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Everything in water that has no fins and scales shall be an abomination for you. You may not even buy or sell them (Hizkuni). Medical science makes clear that organs of motion are the most fit for food, and the more they move the better they are. Such motion prevents luxury and attenuates the flesh (Gersonides). This is repeated as if to say, \u201cDo not inquire into what is too wonderful for you, nor seek to find the reasons for My commandments\u201d (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They shall not be eaten. It is not merely that you may not eat them\u2014you may not even feed them to the children. \u201cThey shall not be eaten\u201d as a result of any action of yours.\u2014Or perhaps the additional implication of the phrase is that one is also forbidden to benefit by them in any way?\u2014No, for Deut. 14:12 teaches us specifically that \u201cyou may not eat\u201d them, implying that you can use them in other ways.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The eagle. Unlike some of the other names in this section, this particular one is quite easy to identify\u2014the more so because this same word nesher that is used for \u201ceagle\u201d in Hebrew is used in Arabic as well. This makes sense, because the two languages are closely related. Some think nesher is related to ashurennu as in Num. 23:9, \u201cAs I see them from the mountain tops, gaze on them from the heights\u201d (see also Num. 24:17). The vulture. Some think this word peres derives from the verb paros in Isa. 58:7, \u201cto divide your bread with the hungry.\u201d The black vulture. The word ozniyyah derives from oz, \u201cpower\u201d; the n in the name is simply a linguistic feature, not part of the root of the word. Even though one individual voice in rabbinic literature claims this is a bird that is not found in inhabited regions, Saadia\u2019s Arabic identification of it is mistaken. For he gave it a name that is used in the language of Ishmael for a mythical bird, as scholars of that language will quite freely admit. It cannot be that God would prohibit us from eating something that does not actually exist.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The following you shall abominate among the birds. Only those that are specifically mentioned in this passage are forbidden (but of course including all the different varieties of each when that term is used). The text does not mention any characteristic that defines a prohibited or permitted bird, but simply says \u201cthe following you shall abominate\u201d\u2014these and only these. (The same applies to the \u201cswarming things\u201d of vv. 20\u201323; only those specified there by name fall into this category.) Our Sages did determine certain characteristics that the listed birds share in order to be able to recognize birds that do not fall into the prohibited category. The main characteristic they identified is that of seizing living prey with the claws. Any bird that does so is definitely unclean. The Torah keeps it away from us because its blood, on account of its cruelty, is heated, dark, and thick. If eaten, it creates mostly black bile and puts cruelty into the heart. Nowhere in the world is there a bird of prey that is not listed in this passage. Likewise, any bird that exhibits such behavior is known to be one of those listed, while birds known not to seize prey are certainly permissible to eat. For there is not a single bird listed that is not a bird of prey\u2014except for one, the vulture (or the black vulture), which the Sages ignored because it is never found in settled areas, but only in the wilderness. Perhaps because it dwells in the badlands, its blood is heated (to ill effect) like that of the birds that seize living prey. This would explain why the Torah forbids it along with them. Among the other characteristics mentioned by the Sages is that of having (1) an extra toe, (2) a crop, and (3) a gizzard with a separable membrane. They knew for certain that such birds are not birds of prey, and are therefore obviously clean. But if it has only two of the three characteristics mentioned, we forbid it. For the raven (v. 15) has both an extra toe and a gizzard with a separable membrane, and we suspect that all birds that have these two characteristics may be some variety of raven. It goes without saying that a bird with only one of these characteristics is forbidden, for all of the other birds that are explicitly forbidden have one of them, except for the eagle, which does not have a single one of the three. \u201cBirds of prey\u201d are those birds that hunt, pursuing other birds, catching them alive, seizing them with their claws, and eating them as do the various types of hawks known here in Spain. This is the correct way to understand why some birds are forbidden and others permitted, as is made clear both in the Talmud and by our careful study of the birds themselves. The reason these birds are prohibited is because they are cruel by nature. The same may be true of the land animals, for there are no carnivores among the animals that have true hoofs and chew the cud, while the animals that have neither characteristic are all beasts of prey. You will find another difference occurring among the land animals that are not to be eaten (also mentioned by the Sages): the milk of the clean animals can be turned into cheese, while that of the unclean animals will never gel or solidify no matter how long you wait. This is a clear difference between them. It may be that this has an ill effect on the reproductive organs, leaving the seed that collects from its moisture cold, wet, and infertile (or at least not fertilizing correctly, as it should). Meanwhile, the milk of the permitted animals is known to be beneficial according to medical science. In some experimental records I have seen that if a suckling drinks pigs\u2019 milk, that child will grow up to be a leper. That is symbolic of the fact that all of the unclean animals have extremely harmful effects.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The following you shall abominate among the birds. Note that 1:14, \u201che shall choose his offering from turtledoves or pigeons,\u201d has already enumerated two permissible birds. Again, the apparent characteristic of the forbidden birds is that they are fighters. Why the \u201cextra\u201d toe should be characteristic of edible birds is a matter that requires further study (Gersonides). The birds that may not be eaten are listed, rather than identified by specific characteristics, because the crop and the gizzard with a separable membrane that are characteristic of the edible birds are internal and not easily visible like the characteristics of the mammals and the fish that may be eaten (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:14\u201317<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Of every variety. Any group of which the text says \u201cof every variety\u201d or \u201call varieties\u201d (v. 15) or the like contains creatures that look different or have different names; nonetheless, they all form a single species.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The kite. The Hebrew word used here is actually a general name that includes two different species, the da\u2019ah (as the word is spelled here) and the dayyah (as it is spelled in Deut. 14:13). Similarly tzipor in Gen. 15:10 is a general name that includes both the \u201cturtledove\u201d and the \u201cpigeon\u201d of Gen. 15:9. In the same Deuteronomy verse there is also a bird identified as ra\u2019ah, and our tradition is correct in saying that the ra\u2019ah is the da\u2019ah. The word derives from a verb da\u2019ah meaning \u201cto swoop\u201d: \u201cThe LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, which will swoop down like the eagle\u201d (Deut. 28:49). Ibn Janah\u2019s assertion that the da\u2019ah cannot be the ra\u2019ah is way off base. Falcons. The ayyah is so called because it is known to dwell on particular islands, iyyim.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Falcons. Some people call this bird the ayyah (as in our verse) and some call it the dayyah (as in Deut. 14:13); the text uses both names to make sure no one eats it mistakenly. It would obviously be false to say that our verse permits the dayyah and the Deuteronomy verse prohibits it (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:15<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Raven. This bird is called orev because it is as dark as the erev, \u201cevening.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Hawks. The sparrow hawk.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The ostrich. The Hebrew name of this bird, bat-ya\u2019anah, identifies it as a \u201cdaughter,\u201d leading some to think that (as with hares) the males of this species are not found. The masculine-sounding plural y\u2019enim occurs in Lam. 4:3, \u201cmy poor people has turned cruel, like ostriches of the desert,\u201d but this is no argument. For we also find feminine nouns with this ending: y\u2019elim in Job 39:1, \u201cDo you know the season when the mountain goats give birth?\u201d and of course also ra\u1e25elim, which means \u201cewes.\u201d The nighthawk. This name, ta\u1e25mas, derives from the word \u1e25amas, \u201cviolence.\u201d The sea gull. This bird, the sha\u1e25af, breeds sha\u1e25efet, \u201cconsumption.\u201d Hawks. The netz has a brilliant plumage, notzah. It seems plausible that these are the birds that are always seen spreading out their wings toward the south, seeking a place of warmth: \u201cIs it by your wisdom that the hawk grows pinions, spreads his wings to the south?\u201d (Job 39:26).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The ostrich. The Hebrew phrase is more correctly \u201cthe young ostrich\u201d\u2014the meat of a full-grown ostrich is so tough that no one can eat it, and hence there was no need to forbid it (Bekhor Shor). Even more correctly, it is \u201cthe young of the ostrich,\u201d from which phrase our Sages derive that it is forbidden to eat even the eggs of the unclean birds (Hizkuni). Hawks. These are the birds that are used to hunt other birds; they return to their master\u2019s arm (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The cormorant. The translations follow the rabbinic interpretation here, for the Sages explain shalakh as referring to a bird that sholeh, \u201cpulls,\u201d fish out of the water. In fact, Onkelos translates it as \u201cfishpuller.\u201d The little owl \u2026 and the great owl. These are indeed correctly identified as owls, birds that shriek at night and have human-looking cheeks.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The little owl. \u201cLike an owl among the ruins\u201d (Ps. 102:7). Some say that this kos is so named because it is nikseh, \u201cconcealed,\u201d from human eyes and dwells in places where no humans live. The cormorant. Some say that the shalakh is a bird that by its nature will cast forth, hishlikh, its young. The great owl. The yanshuf is a bird that flies at twilight, neshef, for it cannot see during the day due to the blazing light of the sun.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:18\u201321<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 How can vv. 20 and 23 (where OJPS is more accurate than NJPS) declare \u201call winged swarming things that walk on fours\u201d an abomination, when the intervening verses list some such creatures that are in fact permissible to eat?
\n\u2666 How is it that the carcass of an animal which dies in any other way is unclean, but that of an animal which is slaughtered properly is not? One is just as dead as the other!<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The white owl. The Hebrew word really refers to a bat. It looks like a mouse that flies at night. The same word is used in v. 30, where it is translated \u201cchameleon\u201d though it really refers to an animal resembling this one, but eyeless\u2014the mole.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The white owl. All who see the tinshemet are amazed, yishom. Note that this name is also used (in v. 30) for the chameleon. The pelican. The Hebrew word, ka\u2019at, implies \u201cthe vomiter\u201d; some say that there is such a bird, whose nature is to regurgitate its food. The bustard. According to Saadia, this ra\u1e25am is the same as the Arabic rakam (their alphabet not distinguishing between these two letters). Others say that it is a bird that is mera\u1e25em, very loving, to its young.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The stork. Specifically, the white stork. Its Hebrew name is \u1e25asidah, \u201cfaithful,\u201d because it faithfully shares its food with its companions. Herons. An irritable kind of stork; it seems to me that it is indeed the bird we call in French heron. The hoopoe. A wild fowl with a double crest. Its Hebrew name, ha-dukhifat, refers to its hod kafut, \u201cbraided glory,\u201d that is, its crest. Onkelos calls it \u201cthe mountain-cutter\u201d on account of its behavior, as described on B. Git. 68b.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The stork. This bird appears at specific seasons during the year: \u201cEven the stork in the sky knows her seasons\u201d (Jer. 8:7). Some say that this name \u1e25asidah is derived from \u1e25esed, \u201cfaithfulness,\u201d but this is implausible. Herons. The anafah is quick to anger, yitanef. The hoopoe. The Sadducees think this word, dukhifat, means \u201cchicken.\u201d But they are world-class idiots. Whoever told them such a thing? The bat. This is a small bird that flies at night. The Hebrew name, atalef, is unusual in that it is a quadriliteral, that is, it is derived from a four-letter root rather than the normal three-letter root.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The hoopoe. In fact, the name dukhifat means du-, \u201ctwo,\u201d khifat, \u201crocks,\u201d and this is why Onkelos calls it \u201cthe mountain-cutter\u201d\u2014because it can split rocks in two. See Jer. 4:29, \u201cThey clamber up the rocks,\u201d for an example of khefim used with this meaning (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All winged swarming things. That is, insects\u2014the tiny little things that skitter about close to the surface of the earth: flies, hornets, mosquitoes, and grasshoppers.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
That walk on fours. Like bees.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Winged swarming things. \u201cWinged\u201d is in fact the same Hebrew word translated in v. 13 as \u201cbirds.\u201d But our verse refers to insects, which sometimes fly and sometimes crawl on the ground; they are an abomination.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Winged swarming things. Rashi\u2019s comment is not correct as far as I am concerned. \u201cSwarming\u201d has nothing to do with littleness, and \u201cbirds\u201d (which is the literal translation of the word given here as \u201cwinged\u201d) is not a term that defines size. The bat (v. 19) has tiny legs, and many varieties of locust (v. 22) have legs that are bigger than those of a bat. If Rashi is correct, why is a bat not included among the \u201cwinged swarming things\u201d? Rather, the definition of this term follows it immediately: they are those that walk on fours. For all true birds that walk on two legs have a vertical neck and rely on their wings to move around. Note that the \u201cwinged birds\u201d of Gen. 1:21 are called in the previous verse simply \u201cbirds.\u201d Those that have short legs, with a neck and head that are horizontal to the ground, like insects, are those that are called \u201cwinged swarming things,\u201d as I have explained in my comment to Gen. 1:20. The Sifra adds midrashically: R. Judah the Prince says, \u201c \u2018All winged swarming things that walk on fours shall be an abomination for you.\u2019 But if it walks on five it is clean.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On fours. On four legs. Above their feet. Near the neck they have two things like legs besides their regular four; and when they want to take off and fly, they do so by using these two limbs. There are a lot of them here among us, somewhat resembling crayfish, but we are not expert on them. This creature would seem to have the four different traditional signs of being a \u201cclean\u201d animal: (1) four legs, (2) four wings, (3) the jointed legs referred to in our verse, and (4) wings that cover most of its body. All these four traits are found in the insects here in France that I am describing. But some of them have long heads, and some of them have no tail, and of course they must be what the Torah calls \u201ca grasshopper,\u201d and in this respect we do not know enough to distinguish between the various kinds.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
To leap with. Or simply \u201cto jump with,\u201d as Onkelos has it. In the causative conjugation, the same root is found in Hab. 3:6, \u201cWhen He glances, He makes nations leap.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All that have, above their feet, jointed legs. Note that the written text of the Torah here records lo with an aleph: \u201call that not, above their feet, jointed legs.\u201d The translations have (correctly) followed the reading tradition, which has lo with a vav: \u201call that have jointed legs.\u201d To leap with. The word is a hapax legomenon, not being found elsewhere in the Bible; Onkelos translates it as \u201cto jump with,\u201d using the same root in Aramaic as is used in Hebrew in Song 2:8, \u201cThere he comes, leaping over mountains, bounding over hills,\u201d where it is clearly parallel to \u201cleap.\u201d And what Onkelos says is true.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
All that have, above their feet, jointed legs. The written text of the Torah here records \u05dc\u05d0, meaning \u201cnot\u201d; the reading tradition has \u05dc\u05d5, meaning \u201cto it\u201d\u2014one of 15 such cases in the Bible (Masorah). The word translated \u201cjointed legs\u201d really refers to the \u201ctoes\u201d of these extra legs, with which the grasshopper pushes off when he wants to jump (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:22\u201326<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:22<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Locusts. The Hebrew word, arbeh, is related to rabbah, \u201cmany.\u201d Bald locust. The sol\u2019am is a species that climbs on the rocks, sela\u2019im. Crickets. If this word \u1e25argol is derived from a four-letter root, then it is a hapax, unrelated to any other biblical word. But it may be a compound word (of the kind we find in Dan. 8:13, \u201cwhoever it was\u201d) derived from the phrase \u1e25arag regel, \u201ctrembling legs,\u201d which would give this insect the opposite character to that of the sol\u2019am. Grasshopper. We know what this Hebrew word means because the same word is used in Arabic.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
All varieties of grasshopper. Again, the rabbis struggled to determine exactly what characteristics are shared by the edible insects. For they are extremely difficult to identify, all the more so nowadays due to our lack of expertise in Hebrew (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All other winged swarming things that have four legs shall be an abomination for you. Come and learn: if it has five legs, it is all right.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All other winged swarming things that have four legs. The previous verses refer only to \u201cswarming things that walk on fours\u201d (v. 20). Our verse alludes to the possibility that there are four-legged swarming things that do not walk but only fly.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
But all other winged swarming things that have four legs shall be an abomination for you. \u201cOther\u201d is not in the Hebrew text (see OJPS), but it is correct; the reference is to all those without the \u201cjointed legs\u201d of v. 21. Notice that all the commandments with regard to these \u201cwinged swarming things\u201d are framed positively. The negative formulation\u2014on the basis of which violators are to be whipped\u2014is found in Deut. 14:19: \u201cAll winged swarming things are unclean for you: they may not be eaten.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And the following. Compare the more literal OJPS; but NJPS has it right. Shall make you unclean. If you touch them.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
And the following shall make you unclean. If you touch their corpses. As NJPS correctly explains, \u201cthese\u201d (OJPS) are the animals that follow in vv. 26\u201327.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And the following. Not \u201cand the following,\u201d but \u201cby these\u201d (OJPS)\u2014these being the \u201cwinged swarming things\u201d we have just mentioned as well as the ones that \u201cyou shall abominate among the birds\u201d (v. 13). Others, admittedly, agree with NJPS that this expression does belong with the following verses. In my opinion, the word \u201cthese\u201d summarizes what has preceded. Shall make you unclean. Again OJPS \u201cye shall become unclean\u201d is preferable. The verb is a Hitpael form and thus reflexive; the \u05ea ordinarily found in Hitpael has merged with the \u05d8 of the root, which is why the \u05d8 is marked (with a dagesh) as being doubled. For similar examples, see 14:8 and Num. 7:89. Shall be unclean until evening. For the sake of brevity, the text omits to mention that he must also bathe in water.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
And the following shall make you unclean. If Rashi\u2019s comments to vv. 24 and 26 are correct, one must ask: Why did the text separate these two categories and discuss them individually? It should simply have said, \u201cWhoever touches any animal carcass shall be unclean until evening, and whoever carries such a carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.\u201d There is actually a difference between the two texts, however. V. 39 says \u201cIf an animal that you may eat has died,\u201d but died does not occur in our verse. The carcass of a permissible animal that has been ritually slaughtered does not make one unclean, but there is no such thing as ritual slaughter for an animal that may not be eaten. Anyone who touches these animals when they are dead becomes unclean. But this applies only to \u201cthe following,\u201d that is, to \u201cevery animal that has true hoofs but without clefts through the hoofs, or that does not chew the cud\u201d (v. 26)\u2014but not to fish, birds, or insects. The paragraphing in NJPS is correct; \u201cthe following\u201d applies to the animals listed in v. 26, and the section continues in vv. 27\u201328. V. 29 uses the same language, \u201cthe following.\u201d Ibn Ezra has blundered here.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Whoever carries the carcasses of any of them. Wherever uncleanness from carrying is mentioned, we see that it is more severe than uncleanness that comes simply from touching. For cleansing oneself of it involves washing one\u2019s clothes as well.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Whoever carries the carcasses. Carrying them conveys more severe uncleanness than just touching them. That is why he must wash his clothes as well, not just his body.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Every animal that has true hoofs but without clefts through the hoofs. Like the camel, whose hoof is split on top but joined at the bottom. Here we learn that the carcasses of forbidden animals are unclean; below, in v. 39, we learn that the same is true of the carcasses of edible animals.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Every animal, even though it has true hoofs but without clefts through the hoofs\u2014like a horse or donkey\u2014or that does not chew the cud. Whoever touches them, whether they have simply died or have been slaughtered, shall be unclean, though our verse does not explicitly say \u201cwhen they are dead\u201d as does v. 31. With the clean animals, however, touching them makes one unclean only if it \u201chas died\u201d (v. 39), but not if it has been properly slaughtered, even if it is found to be unfit to eat.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Every animal that has true hoofs \u2026 or that does not chew the cud. Note that NJPS clarifies the somewhat terse Hebrew text (compare OJPS); our verse does not refer to animals that lack both of these characteristics, but (in line with v. 3) to animals that lack either of them. With regard to the paragraphing, see my comment to v. 24. As I understand it, this verse is the beginning of the next section, explaining that for unclean animals too, whoever touches them shall be unclean. Until evening, as with the earlier category. \u201cThem\u201d refers to the carcasses of this type of animal, already mentioned in v. 8: \u201cYou shall not eat of their flesh or touch their carcasses.\u201d As before, such uncleanness lasts until evening. One of those heretical Karaite types reads the verse pedantically to say that it is forbidden to touch these animals even when they are living. But I don\u2019t really need to respond to the comments of crazy people. V. 8 makes clear what is forbidden: eating their flesh or touching their carcasses.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:27\u201329<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:27<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On paws. Like a dog, bear, or cat. Unclean for you. To touch. (See my next comment.)<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
All animals that walk on paws. Like the bear and the dog.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All animals that walk on paws. The same rules apply to them as to the previous category. Notice that the rest of vv. 27\u201328 repeats vv. 24\u201325, confirming my interpretation of the beginning of v. 24. If that verse referred to \u201cthe following,\u201d then vv. 27\u201328 would be redundant.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
All animals that walk on paws. These are not mentioned specifically in the original discussion of vv. 3\u20137. Perhaps they were simply left in the general category (of animals that do not have hoofs and do not chew the cud) because it is not customary to eat them. The Hebrew text uses a different term here\u2014\u201cbeast\u201d rather than \u201canimal,\u201d as OJPS has it\u2014but the real distinction is that a \u201cbeast\u201d is not domesticated; as in English, \u201canimal\u201d is the more general word, in which \u201cbeasts\u201d (or, better, \u201cwild animals\u201d) are included. Note that Deut. 14:4\u20135, in the chapter parallel to ours, lists both kinds under the name \u201canimal\u201d: \u201cThese are the animals that you may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat; the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck\u201d and so forth. The Sifra interprets this passage midrashically to have v. 27 refer to meat taken from a dead animal and v. 26 to meat taken from a living animal. For the text repeats its concerns about uncleanness at length to indicate that the animal corpse conveys uncleanness in whole and in part, whether the entire animal has died or whether all that is dead is the part that was removed from the living animal. Shall be unclean until evening. Here, as throughout this chapter, this phrase is a shorthand way of saying that he becomes clean at evening if he has previously washed his flesh with water. It is obvious that one who must \u201cwash his clothes\u201d (vv. 25, 28) via immersion would have to wash his body as well. Note that the immersion in water is mentioned specifically when the passage continues with objects that are unclean (v. 32); we can learn from that verse that the same applies to a person. Elsewhere we are told, \u201cAny person, whether citizen or stranger, who eats what has died or has been torn by beasts shall wash his clothes, bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he shall be clean\u201d (17:15), and the punishment for a violation is given immediately afterward: \u201cBut if he does not wash his clothes and bathe his body, he shall bear his guilt\u201d (17:16). This is the rule for any uncleanness derived from a carcass. We can learn from that verse that the rule applies also to uncleanness arising from contact with \u201cswarming things\u201d; with regard to them, in any case, immersion in water is already mentioned here in v. 32, as I have explained.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:28<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Anyone who carries their carcasses. Anyone who moves it from its place, even without touching it. However, if such a corpse was loaded on his shoulders, but he did not touch it and did not move, he is not unclean. We have learned exactly this in M. Zav. 5:3. If a dead body is placed on a bed with nothing but a sheet of paper underneath it, that is enough to keep the sheets ritually clean. For as we learn in that mishnah, a corpse does not convey uncleanness by lying on something unless it is moved. The Jerusalem Targum too translates our verse with a word that makes clear that \u201ccarrying\u201d must involve motion. Merely \u201cbearing\u201d it (see OJPS) is not enough.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They are unclean for you. That is, for all of you. The intent is to clarify that all Jews\u2014men, women, and children\u2014are alike included in these prohibitions.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Anyone who carries their carcasses. The text is stricter with one who carries than with one who touches, in that it also requires washing the clothes. Ordinarily, touching would simply involve light contact with the hand, while carrying (most of the time) would involve serious contact with the clothes as well.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:29<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The following shall be unclean for you. Here \u201cunclean\u201d does not mean forbidden as food, but unclean in the technical sense, to the touch. They make one unclean so that one may not eat priestly donations or consecrated food or come into the sanctuary. The mole. Rather, \u201cthe weasel\u201d (OJPS). Great lizards. Rather, \u201ctoads.\u201d A toad is something like a frog.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The following shall be unclean for you. To touch. From among the things that swarm on the earth. In truth, we cannot identify any of the following eight names for certain. Even the birds of vv. 13\u201319 we know only by tradition.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The following shall be unclean for you. Wherever something is called \u201cunclean for you,\u201d the expression is used in praise of the Jews. \u201cIt is unclean for you because you are a holy people, but it is all right for the other nations\u201d (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:30\u201334<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The gecko. Rather, \u201cporcupine.\u201d The sand lizard. Rather, \u201cthe snail.\u201d The chameleon. Rather, \u201cthe mole.\u201d See my comment to v. 18.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:31<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Those are for you the unclean among all the swarming things. Only those eight that were just listed. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. Even after having washed, which is also required.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. That is, when they are freshly dead. Once they have permanently dried, one does not become unclean by touching their bones, hides, and so forth (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Shall be dipped in water. Even after being dipped in water it is ritually unclean until evening, but once the sun sets it shall be clean.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Any article of wood. But not of stone or of earth. A sack. The Hebrew word refers to a garment made of goats\u2019 hair. Any such article that can be put to use. Rather, \u201cin which any work is done.\u201d It therefore cannot apply to the lid of a container, which merely covers it but has no \u201cinside.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall be dipped in water. For an understanding of exactly how a cloth, sack, or \u201cvessel\u201d (see OJPS) becomes ritually unclean and is to be cleansed, we are dependent on Jewish tradition.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
One of them. I would presume that \u201cthem\u201d applies to the animals of vv. 26\u201327 as well as to the \u201cthings that swarm\u201d of v. 29. Why would the rules be given here only for the swarming things, when the same rules apply to the animal carcasses as well? The rules of v. 34 as well apply to every kind of uncleanness, not just that of \u201cthings that swarm\u201d; the text is speaking more generally here. If you prefer, you might say that \u201cthem\u201d does refer only to the \u201cthings that swarm,\u201d but that\u2014having waited to describe the uncleanness that pertains to objects until all the various living creatures were listed\u2014the text presumes we will understand that the same rules apply to the other animals as well. The Sages certainly follow this view, since they interpret the unusual Hebrew phrase translated freely here as \u201cwhen dead\u201d to mean that swarming things do not convey uncleanness unless they are at least the size of a lentil. I have already mentioned (in my comment to v. 27) that the text waits until this verse to mention immersion, which in fact applies to all types of uncleanness. Then it shall be clean. The word \u201cthen\u201d of the English translations is not actually found in the Hebrew. A more literal translation would be \u201cIt shall remain unclean until evening and it shall be clean.\u201d The Sifra resolves the apparent contradiction here by explaining the verse midrashically: \u201cit shall be clean\u201d with regard to ordinary foods, but \u201cit shall remain unclean until evening\u201d with regard to the priestly donations. But the straightforward explanation is that given by Rashi, which the translations have adopted. In fact, however, the procedure described here (and implied throughout this section by the phrase \u201cunclean until evening\u201d) is actually that required in order to eat of the priestly donations, as 22:6\u20137 make clear. With regard to ordinary food\u2014or to tithes, for that matter\u2014only immersion is required. That is not mentioned here, for there is no commandment to immerse oneself before eating ordinary food. You can eat it in a state of uncleanness if you want to.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean. The ruling that swarming things do not convey uncleanness unless they are at least the size of a lentil is a tradition that has been passed down orally all the way from Moses (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If any of those falls into an earthen vessel. An earthen vessel does not acquire ritual impurity by contact, but by having something unclean in its interior. Everything inside it shall be unclean. The vessel in turn then conveys impurity to whatever else may be inside it. The vessel itself you shall break. This tells us that ritual immersion has no effect on it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If any of those falls into an earthen vessel. Even if it is hanging in the air and does not actually touch the vessel, everything inside the vessel is unclean (Abarbanel). The vessel itself you shall break. Earthen vessels absorb too much of the uncleanness\u2014anyway, they are cheap and one is not much out of pocket (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:34<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
As to any food that may be eaten. As OJPS makes clear, the reference is to the situation of v. 33. Any such food \u201ctherein\u201d\u2014in an earthen vessel where something unclean falls\u2014that has come in contact with water shall become unclean. Similarly, any liquid that may be drunk that was in such a vessel shall become unclean. We learn a number of things from this: that food cannot acquire ritual impurity until it has come into contact with water\u2014but having once done so, it can ever afterward become impure, even if it has dried in the meantime. Since the verse can be read (against the punctuation) to say that the food would become unclean if it comes into contact \u201cwith water and with any liquid that may be drunk,\u201d we learn that wine, oil, and any other drinkable liquid also can make seeds susceptible to impurity by contact. Our Sages have also interpreted this verse to say that a secondary source of impurity cannot communicate its impurity to a utensil. The rabbinic discussion goes as follows: One might think that another kind of vessel, as long as it too was inside the earthen vessel, would also become impure. But this applies only to \u201cany food\u201d that is in it, not to another vessel. The unclean thing that fell in is the primary source of impurity, and the earthen vessel itself merely a secondary source, which does not therefore in turn communicate the uncleanness to another vessel. We learn also that if an unclean thing fell into an oven where bread was baking the oven acquires first-degree uncleanness and the bread only second-degree uncleanness. We do not consider the oven to be \u201cfull\u201d of uncleanness (which would give the bread secondary uncleanness of the first degree); if this were so, then clearly another vessel or anything else inside the oven would also be impure, having been directly touched by the uncleanness. We learn further that water cannot make seeds susceptible to impurity before they have been detached from the ground. For there is no such thing as a plant growing out of the ground and remaining untouched by water. So what kind of hypothetical coming into contact with water could the Torah be talking about? We learn further that food cannot contaminate anything else with uncleanness unless there is an amount of it the size of an egg, for our verse refers to food \u201cthat may be eaten,\u201d and (according to the Sages) the amount of food \u201cthat may be eaten\u201d in one bite is the size of a chicken egg; the throat cannot contain a larger amount.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
It shall become unclean if it came in contact with water. One who wishes to explain the rationale behind the commandments and to justify them to the Christians will note that the Holy One does not permit food and drink to acquire uncleanness until they have been prepared for consumption. Adding water to them is the first act in such preparation and the key to their being considered edible.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any liquid. The same word is elsewhere used verbally (e.g., Neh. 1:11), but the translations interpret it correctly here.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Any food that may be eaten. Rashi\u2019s comment that food does not contaminate unless it is the size of an egg (which is taken from the discussion in the Sifra) is a bit hasty. In fact, our verse discusses how food becomes contaminated, not how it may contaminate something else. Scholars have argued elsewhere with Rashi and demonstrated that what the Torah is saying is that food cannot become unclean unless it is the size of an egg; the Sifra merely links this biblical verse to the rabbinic extension of this rule to food in any amount. For understanding the biblical verse itself, the important thing in the Sifra is its close analysis of our phrase. \u201cFood\u201d indicates human food, but \u201cany food\u201d implies that animal food intended to be used as food for humans is included as well; still, the verse refers only to \u201cfood that may be eaten,\u201d not to spoiled food.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
As to any food that may be eaten. It goes without saying that \u201cfood\u201d indicates human food; all food is eventually eaten by some creature or other (Gersonides). It shall become unclean if it came in contact with water. Uncleanness that is wet is more disgusting than uncleanness that is dry (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:35\u201336<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:35<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
An oven or stove. According to Jewish law, the reference here is to an oven or stove that is (1) moveable, (2) made of earthenware, (3) has an inside, (4) has an opening on which one sets the pot, (5) has its opening on top. Shall be smashed. For an object of earthenware cannot be purified by immersion in water. They are unclean and unclean they shall remain for you. You need not think it is imperative to destroy them. If one wishes to keep them whole, albeit remaining in a state of impurity, he may do so.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
An oven. For baking bread. Or stove. For cooking meat. Shall be smashed, for they are unclean. This decree was issued at God\u2019s royal prerogative.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
An oven or stove shall be smashed. The verse teaches us that a clay oven or stove acquires uncleanness like any earthenware vessel and cannot be purified by ritual immersion, though ordinarily anything that is permanently attached to the ground does not acquire uncleanness. The translations are misleading here; it is the earthenware vessel of v. 33 that one must \u201csmash.\u201d The oven or stove must simply be \u201cbroken,\u201d not \u201csmashed so that no shard is left in its breakage to scoop coals from a brazier\u201d (Isa. 30:14). They must, however (to use the language of Ps. 28:5), be torn down, never to be rebuilt and reused. The verb used here is more precisely translated in 14:45 as \u201ctorn down\u201d and in Isa. 22:10 as \u201cpulled down,\u201d both with reference to the destruction of houses.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Stove. The dual form of the Hebrew word shows that this is a stove made to hold two pots. Etymologically, the word is connected to the \u201cflaming brazier\u201d of Zech. 12:6 (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:36<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be clean. For the rule is that anything permanently attached to the ground cannot become impure. The end of this phrase can be read not only as saying that such a water source \u201cshall be clean,\u201d but that anyone who immerses in it \u201cshall be clean\u201d of his impurity. But whoever touches such a carcass in it shall be unclean. You should not think that, since even an unclean person can purify himself of uncleanness in a spring, certainly a person who is clean to begin with could touch a carcass in a spring and remain clean. Rather, \u201cwhoever touches such a carcass in it shall\u201d indeed \u201cbe unclean.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
A spring or cistern. The straightforward sense is that water that is still in the earth cannot acquire ritual impurity; to become unclean, \u201cany liquid that may be drunk\u201d must be \u201cinside any vessel\u201d (v. 34).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A spring or cistern. There is some confusion in Hebrew between the words be\u2019er, a well in which water occurs naturally, and bor, a cistern constructed to collect rainwater. See Jer. 6:7, where the written text refers to a cistern (which is how OJPS translates it), but the reading instructions apparently mean that it is a well (which is how NJPS takes it). Here in our verse, then, the word ma\u2019ayan, translated \u201cspring,\u201d actually includes in its meaning what in English is called a well. (It goes without saying that the waters of a flowing stream would also be included.) In which water is collected. This expression alludes not to both, but only to the cistern, for in a dry cistern no water is collected. But some would translate the verse, \u201cA spring, or a cistern, or any collection of water.\u201d A similar example is found in Hab. 3:11, \u201cSun and moon stand still on high,\u201d where the conjunction is lacking in the Hebrew. Whoever touches such a carcass in it shall be unclean. Rather, \u201cwhatever [water] touches such a carcass shall be unclean.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be clean. Being technically \u201cattached to the ground,\u201d water that is collected in this way does not become unclean even if something unclean should fall into it. But whoever touches such a carcass in it shall be unclean. The English translations are mistaken here. It should rather be understood to say, \u201cbut whatever [water] touches such a carcass shall be unclean.\u201d The distinction is that, if something unclean falls into a cistern, most of the water does not actually touch it. But with \u201cunattached,\u201d that is, flowing, water essentially all the water touches the unclean thing. It\u2019s true that the Hebrew verb is singular, while the Hebrew word for water is plural. But we find it used with a singular verb elsewhere, e.g., Num. 19:13. Or perhaps by \u201cwhatever\u201d the text means to include all other liquids with water, as in v. 34. The verse teaches the general rule, not mentioned until now, that \u201cunattached\u201d water can acquire uncleanness but \u201ccollected\u201d water cannot. In the Sifra, R. Yose the Galilean interprets this verse more along the lines of the English translations, to say that touching such a corpse makes one unclean but carrying it does not. It is indeed possible that our passage is summarizing the previous details and saying that touching swarming things makes one unclean, but not carrying them. The Sifra derives other laws from those words in the verse that are not strictly necessary to convey the straightforward meaning, all of which are Mosaic laws, from Sinai. The rules given here about the spring or cistern and about the carcass in fact apply generally, not just to swarming things, but the text waited until all the things that convey uncleanness were described before stating them. Or perhaps the rule is given here because it is precisely swarming things that are more likely to die in a spring or a cistern. In any case, I have already given you my opinion, in my comment to v. 32.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:37\u201339<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:37<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Seed grain. The word translated \u201cseed\u201d is a noun; \u201cPlease test your servants for 10 days, giving us legumes to eat and water to drink\u201d (Dan. 1:12). It is clean. These two verses teach that it cannot be considered food susceptible of uncleanness until it has been touched by water.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Seed grain. \u201cSeed\u201d is the singular of the same word that is used in Dan. 1:12 in the plural. That is to be sown. Rather, any seed \u201cthat is [already] sown\u201d in the ground. Anything that is attached to the ground cannot acquire impurity.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Seed grain. Compare OJPS \u201csowing seed\u201d; but more properly zeru\u2019a should be passive, \u201csown seed.\u201d However, it is possible that NJPS is correct that we do indeed have two nouns here. The evidence for this view is found in Dan. 1:16, where zer\u2019onim means \u201clegumes.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Seed grain. See Rashi\u2019s comment. Now, v. 34 has already told us that \u201cany food that may be eaten \u2026 shall become unclean if it came in contact with water,\u201d indicating that prior contact with water is essential. There, however, we learn only about food in a vessel whose interior has become unclean; here, we are told that even food on which a verminous carcass has directly fallen does not become unclean unless it has first come into contact with water. That is how the Sifra explains it. Perhaps we ought also to note that v. 34 refers to actual food, while our verse adds even grain that has been set aside for sowing. The reason that contamination does not take place unless the food or grain has been touched by water is that the filth of the vermin (or whatever else might cause uncleanness) sticks to the food when it is wet but not when it is dry. The Torah adds an extra layer of protection by having food retain the possibility of becoming unclean once wet even if it has subsequently dried out. That way, there is a clear standard and no need to decide how wet is too wet. The same rules apply to contamination by a carcass, which our verse states for the reasons we have given in our comment to v. 36.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:38<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If water is put on the seed. Again, this is only so once the plant has been detached from the ground. If you interpret it otherwise, there would be no such thing as a seed that was not susceptible to impurity. Again also, the reference is not just to water but to any liquid; and it does not matter whether liquid falls on the seeds or they fall into the liquid. How this is derived from the text is all explained in the Sifra. If \u2026 any part of a carcass falls upon it. Whether or not it has subsequently dried. The Torah cares only whether or not it is considered food. Once it has acquired susceptibility to impurity, it never again loses such susceptibility.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If water is put on the seed. When they irrigate the field. And any part of a carcass falls upon it. Upon the seed. Some think it means \u201cupon the water.\u201d It may be objected that the Hebrew word for \u201cwater\u201d is plural and the verb \u201cis put\u201d is singular. But we occasionally find \u201cwater\u201d treated as a singular noun (e.g., Gen. 18:4 and Num. 19:13), so that is not a problem.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If water is put on the seed. But only if water is deliberately put on it, not if water just happens to land on it (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:39<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Its carcass. But not its bones or sinews, nor its horns or hoofs, nor its hide.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If an animal that you may eat has died. If it is properly slaughtered, then even if it is found to be unfit to eat, it is not considered a \u201ccarcass\u201d for this purpose. But with the animals that may not be eaten, no such distinction is made. It is a carcass and conveys impurity even if ritually slaughtered. The Sages interpret \u201cany beast, of which ye may eat\u201d (OJPS) to refer to animals \u201cof which\u201d some convey uncleanness and some do not. An animal that is properly slaughtered is clean, even if it is found to be diseased and thus unfit to eat. Ritual slaughter has removed it from the category of unclean \u201ccarcass\u201d into which it would have fallen had it been left to die.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall be unclean until evening. Even after washing with water.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
An animal that you may eat. The Hebrew text uses the third person feminine singular pronoun. It is ordinarily written in the Torah exactly like the masculine pronoun \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0; this is one of only 11 cases in the Torah where it is spelled \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0, as it normally is in the rest of the Bible and elsewhere in Hebrew (Masorah). Its carcass shall be unclean until evening. Our Sages have a tradition that this refers specifically to \u201cits carcass,\u201d but not to its bones, sinews, horns, and hoofs. Since this is a tradition, we accept it; but the straightforward sense is that these organs too are part of the \u201ccarcass\u201d and share in its uncleanness (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:40\u201342<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:40<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Anyone who eats of its carcass. The precise rabbinic interpretation of 22:8 implies that eating of the carcass of a bird that has not been properly slaughtered makes both oneself and one\u2019s clothes unclean\u2014but that this would not apply to eating from an animal carcass if one has eaten it without carrying it\u2014as, for example, if someone else stuck a piece of it down your throat. Why then does our verse mention eating? To indicate the minimum size of such a carcass or piece of a carcass that would make one unclean: a standard edible amount, an olive\u2019s worth. Anyone who carries its carcass. The uncleanness of carrying is more severe than that of touching. For the one who carries it renders his clothes unclean, while the clothes of one who merely touches uncleanness do not acquire the uncleanness. Only the former is told that he must wash his clothes. Remain unclean until evening. Even though he has immersed, he still requires the setting of the sun in order to become clean.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Anyone who eats of its carcass. The Sages interpret the mention of eating here to indicate that anyone who carries or touches an edible-sized portion of the carcass\u2014that is, an olive\u2019s worth\u2014would acquire impurity. But the straightforward sense of the verse is that one who eats such flesh is impure whether or not he has touched it with his hands: \u201cHe shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts, thereby becoming unclean\u201d (22:8).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Anyone who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes. We see that eating is as severe an infraction as carrying; after all, eating simply means that one is \u201ccarrying\u201d it on the inside rather than the outside.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Anyone who eats of its carcass. The straightforward sense of vv. 39\u201340 is that eating ordinarily involves both touching and carrying what one eats, meaning that one becomes unclean in both those ways. The reason these rules are repeated is so that one should not think there is any extra uncleanness involved in eating something unclean once one has already touched and carried it. The specific necessity for mentioning them in connection with the animals that are permissible to eat is that one might easily be misled into thinking that such an animal was properly slaughtered when in fact it was not. It is less common to mistakenly think that a non-kosher animal is in fact kosher. The Torah\u2019s method is to speak in terms of what ordinarily occurs. Rabbinically this text is further interpreted to say that touching and carrying only convey uncleanness through an edible quantity of the unclean thing, that is, a piece the size of an olive. Though this rule is given here in connection with the clean animals, it applies as well to the carcass of an animal that is unclean (vv. 24\u201328); this passage is a continuation of that topic. According to the explanation in the Sifra, all the rules of uncleanness from an animal carcass actually derive from our passage; the earlier passage is understood to be about uncleanness from individual limbs removed from the animal\u2019s body. I have already discussed this in my comment to v. 27.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:41<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Things that swarm upon the earth. The careful phrasing here excludes (e.g.) bugs in pea and bean pods and lentil mites, for they do not swarm upon the ground but are hidden within the food itself. Once they come out of the food and \u201cswarm,\u201d they too are forbidden. They shall not be eaten. As in v. 13, it is forbidden not merely to eat them but also to feed them to one who is too young to be bound by the commandment. And again, as I said in my comment to v. 10, \u201cswarming\u201d implies something small and skittery.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All the things that swarm upon the earth. This refers to the general category. It does not mean that this only applies to such animals when they are actually \u201cswarming\u201d on the ground. The reference is to the eight swarming things mentioned in vv. 29\u201330. Our verse includes them among the things that may not be eaten.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
All the things that swarm upon the earth are an abomination. Where these are previously mentioned, in vv. 29\u201338, they are described only in terms of uncleanness, but their edibility is not discussed. So our verse explicitly says that they shall not be eaten. This tells us that no distinction is to be made among them; all alike are forbidden to eat. Vv. 42\u201345 add many details that have the function of creating a great number of halakhic prohibitions, each of which is punishable by whipping. See Rashi\u2019s comment to v. 44.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:42<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Anything that crawls on its belly. In plain English, a snake. The unusual Hebrew word used here, ga\u1e25on, refers to the way the snake twists back and forth on its belly as it moves. \u201cAnything\u201d that crawls in this way would include worms (which resemble snakes) and even anything that \u201cresembles the resembler.\u201d Anything that walks on fours. That is, a scorpion. But \u201canything\u201d would include here also beetles (or \u201cscarabs,\u201d as we call them), which resemble scorpions, and anything that \u201cresembles the resembler.\u201d Anything that has many legs. This is the animal that has legs all the way from head to tail on either side, which we call the centipede.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Anything that crawls on its belly. \u201cThen the LORD God said to the serpent, \u2018\u2026 On your belly shall you crawl and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life\u2019 \u201d (Gen. 3:14). Anything that walks on fours. Among the little swarming things; see my comment to v. 10.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Belly. The \u05d5 of \u05d2\u05d7\u05d5\u05df is to be written larger; it is the middle letter of the entire Torah (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:43\u201346<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why the apparent duplication of the commandment in vv. 43 and 44 not to become unclean through contact with \u201cswarming things\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why is eating all these animals forbidden in the first place? It cannot be for health reasons, since we see all the other peoples eating them without apparent risk to their health\u2014and some animals that are actually poisonous to eat are not included here!
\n\u2666 Why is a human corpse the acme of impurity, when it would seem that animals, with their less perfect bodies, should be more unclean?
\n\u2666 Since humans (like a leper, a menstruant, and so forth) may convey impurity even when they are alive, why is it that animals convey impurity only when they are dead?
\n\u2666 Why does the carcass of a bird not convey impurity (except, as the Sages teach, in extremely restricted circumstances) just as does that of an animal?
\n\u2666 Why does the carcass of a fish not convey impurity at all?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:43<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not draw abomination upon yourselves. By eating them. For the abomination of \u201cthe self\u201d\u2014more literally translated \u201cthe soul\u201d\u2014does not occur by simple touching. You shall not make yourselves unclean therewith. By the same logic, this too refers to eating. And thus become unclean. If you make yourselves unclean with them here on earth, you shall \u201cbecome unclean\u201d (from My perspective) in the World to Come and the heavenly academy as well.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not draw abomination upon yourselves. Literally, \u201cupon your souls,\u201d rendering them polluted and repulsive. Compare v. 13, where exactly the same Hebrew verb means \u201cto consider [something] an abomination.\u201d You shall not make yourselves unclean therewith. As is well known, you are what you eat. And thus become unclean. The Hebrew verb \u201cto make unclean\u201d has dropped the \u05d0 it regularly has. This is a well-known phenomenon; see (e.g.) \u201cfrom year\u2019s beginning to year\u2019s end\u201d (Deut. 11:12). But with this particular verb the missing \u05d0 may suggest a special nuance. We find the same verb spelled without \u05d0 again in Job 18:3, \u201cWhy are we thought of as brutes, regarded by you as stupid?\u201d Becoming unclean in this way suggests a lack of brains.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not draw abomination upon yourselves. Literally, \u201cupon your souls.\u201d God forbid we should understand (as does Nahmanides in his comment to v. 13) that these are health regulations. If that were so, God\u2019s Torah would be merely a medical textbook\u2014and a minor one, at that. The Torah does not forbid us to eat noxious plants; and of course the other nations, who eat the animals that we are forbidden to eat, are perfectly healthy. All of these rules have to do with the health not of the body, but of the soul (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:44<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For I the LORD am your God. Just as I am holy, I who am the Lord your God, so too you shall sanctify yourselves here below on earth and be holy before Me, for I will sanctify you above and in the World to Come. You shall not make yourselves unclean through any swarming thing that moves upon the earth by violating any of the many prohibitions connected with them, each of which is separately punishable by whipping. As B. Mak. 16b says, \u201cFor eating an eel he is whipped four times, for an ant five, for a hornet six.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy. That is why I am telling you that you shall not make yourselves unclean. As in Exod. 9:21, ve- is not \u201cand\u201d here, but is an emphatic particle akin to Arabic fa. There are many other cases of it in the Bible.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For I the LORD am your God: you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy. Since I am leading you, you must try as much as possible to be like Me. Since I am holy, and therefore distinct from materiality, you too must try to separate yourselves from materiality as much as you can (Gersonides). In those days, the animals we are forbidden to eat were connected with idolatry. Even today, as Maimonides notes, in India it is forbidden to eat cattle or sheep; in other lands, they specifically eat some of the foods forbidden to us as part of their idolatrous rituals (Abarbanel). It is worth your making this attempt, for My whole purpose in bringing you up from Egypt was that you should be eternally holy and be able to have Me as your God without any intermediary (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:45<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For I the LORD am He who brought you up from the land of Egypt. I brought you up from Egypt for the purpose of receiving My commandments. Another reading: I the LORD am He who brought you up. The other places where this is mentioned say \u201cwho brought you forth,\u201d but here it says \u201cwho brought you up.\u201d The school of R. Ishmael teaches it this way: If I had brought Israel up from Egypt for no other reason than to keep them from contaminating themselves by means of swarming things as the other nations do, it would have been enough. That in itself would have brought them \u201cup\u201d to a higher level.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For I the LORD am He who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God. The point of the expression is: The only reason I brought you up from Egypt was to be your God. And if you will not be holy, I will not be your God. So if you want Me to be your God, you must be holy.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God. Since He brought them out of Egypt, it is fitting that they should obey His commandments (Abarbanel). You shall be holy. Whether you want to be or not (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:46<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
These are the instructions. Rather, vv. 44\u201345 are the reason and the intention behind My forbidding you all of the foods mentioned here (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 11:47<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Distinguishing. It is not enough merely to memorize these rules; you must know them intimately and be expert in them. Between the unclean and the clean. Naturally, you must also be able to distinguish between, say, a donkey and a cow\u2014but this is obvious. You must also be able to distinguish, in an otherwise clean animal, between what is unclean and clean for you\u2014e.g., between a case where the animal\u2019s windpipe is slashed only halfway through and a case where it is slashed more than halfway. Between the living things that may be eaten and the living things that may not be eaten. Again, you must know the difference between (e.g.) a deer and a wild ass; but this is obvious. You must also know when an animal that is slaughtered shows the signs of disease, whether the signs are such as to leave it fit to eat or make it unfit.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The unclean. Among the birds and the swarming things in the water. That may be eaten. Literally, \u201cthat are eaten\u201d; but the translations are correct. That may not be eaten. Again, the text literally says, \u201cthat are not eaten\u201d according to the rules of the Torah.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
For distinguishing between the unclean and the clean, between the living things that may be eaten and the living things that may not be eaten. In this chapter, the Torah uses the term \u201cunclean\u201d both with regard to \u201cuncleanness\u201d\u2014that is, ritual purity\u2014and with regard to whether or not an animal is permissible to eat. Our verse, summarizing what we must learn from the chapter, uses \u201cdistinguishing between the unclean and the clean\u201d to describe the rules of ritual purity, leaving the distinction between living things that may and may not be eaten in a different category. The Sifra notes that our verse uses the word for a wild animal (OJPS \u201cbeast\u201d), which it explains as a specific prohibition against eating forbidden wild animals, as a subcategory of forbidden animals in general. Rashi explains that one of the additional things this verse commands us to \u201cdistinguish\u201d is the difference between a case where an animal\u2019s windpipe is slashed only halfway through and a case where it is slashed through more than halfway; as the Sages teach us, the difference between the two may be as little as a hairsbreadth. B. \u1e24ul. 29a tells us that the difference must be great enough to be visible to the eye, but don\u2019t be misled by this. It is merely their way of saying that those who think exactly halfway is enough are wrong. As all the sources actually make clear, exactly halfway is not enough, but even a hairsbreadth more is enough.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:1\u20132<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does this section on uncleanness begin with \u201ca woman at childbirth\u201d (v. 2), which is an intermediate level of uncleanness, rather than beginning with the lowest level (someone with a discharge, which is not treated until ch. 15) or the highest level (the leper of ch. 13)?
\n\u2666 It is understandable that, since blood has come forth from her, a woman who has given birth should be \u201cunclean seven days\u201d (v. 2); but why should she then \u201cremain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days\u201d (v. 4)? (I realize that 7 + 33 = 40, and that an embryo takes 40 days to develop into a fetus, but these are 40 days of purity and cleanness, not of uncleanness!)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
R. Simlai said: Just as the creation of man follows that of every beast and bird in Genesis 1, so too the instructions in Leviticus about his uncleanness follow those about the beasts and the birds.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
At childbirth. The Hebrew word literally means \u201cgive forth seed.\u201d Even if (by miscarriage) she is \u201cdelivered\u201d (OJPS) so early in her term that the embryo is dissolved and what comes forth appears like the \u201cseed\u201d that went into her, the mother is nonetheless unclean by reason of this \u201cdelivery.\u201d As at the time of her menstrual infirmity. The same rules of uncleanness apply here, even if no blood comes forth when she delivers. The basic meaning of the word translated \u201cinfirmity\u201d is simply \u201cflow.\u201d The connotation of \u201cinfirmity\u201d comes because during such a blood flow, the woman feels ill, with a heaviness in her head and limbs.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
A woman at childbirth. Rather, \u201cwhen a woman conceives,\u201d whether the child is male or female. This is the general statement, after which the verse specifies that if she bears a male the rule for him shall be such-and-such, while \u201cif she bears a female\u201d (v. 5) the rule for her shall be thus-and-so. She shall be unclean seven days. Even if she did not bleed during the birth. As at the time of her menstrual infirmity. As 15:19 will explain, that infirmity entails a seven-day period of separation. Even though the blood of childbirth is not unclean as is that of menstruation, the effect is the same. The Hebrew word for menstruation derives from a root that conveys the meaning \u201cwandering apart\u201d; in this case, she is separated from her husband. \u201cInfirmity\u201d is correctly translated; compare \u201cMy heart is sick within me\u201d (Jer. 8:18).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A woman at childbirth. Having completed the instructions about determining \u201cclean\u201d and \u201cunclean\u201d with regard to edibles, the text turns to uncleanness with regard to persons. It begins with the woman who gives birth, because birth is the beginning of the life cycle. A more literal translation would be \u201cWhen a woman gives forth seed.\u201d Many say that if the woman gives forth her seed before the man does, the child is a male, which is why our text begins with the case where she bears a male. (According to the natural philosophers of the Greeks, it is the woman who has the seed; the male seed causes it to take shape, but the entire child comes from the woman\u2019s blood.) But really the idiom of \u201cgiving forth seed\u201d is an image like that of the earth producing vegetation, and the translations are correct: when a woman produces offspring. She shall be unclean. As the translations recognize, the vav that begins this phrase does not mean \u201cand,\u201d but is an emphatic particle akin to Arabic fa. Seven days. As we see as well with sickness, seven days is not an arbitrary number but a natural cycle of time, one of the moon\u2019s quarters, when illnesses alter their courses. Here too, it takes seven days for her to return to her normal state. Her menstrual infirmity. \u201cMenstrual\u201d comes from \u05e0\u05d3\u05d3, the dagesh indicating a geminate. \u201cInfirmity\u201d is the correct sense, though it is really a plural: \u201cThe LORD will ward off from you all sickness; He will not bring upon you any of the dreadful diseases of Egypt\u201d (Deut. 7:15). The blood that flows forth is the result of a disorder in the woman\u2019s body.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A woman at childbirth. Rashi understands the unusual Hebrew phrasing to indicate that this rule applies even if the woman miscarries so early in the pregnancy that she is \u201cdelivered\u201d merely of seed. In fact, what is meant is that the fetus has already been formed in the likeness of a person, but that it subsequently dissolves. For anything that does not have the likeness of a person is not considered a child. Likewise, anything that is not qualified for the covenant of breath is not considered a child. But when the woman is delivered, even a dissolved embryo makes her unclean as long as we can recognize its form. E.g., if it is \u201crecognizably fashioned,\u201d she is certainly unclean; if not, she is possibly unclean. That is how the unusual phrasing of our text is interpreted by the Sages. With reference to its meaning in context, they said as follows: When the woman puts forth seed before the man does, she gives birth to a male. They did not, however, mean that the fetus is produced from the woman\u2019s seed. For even though women have reproductive organs just as men do, either they produce no seed, or what seed they have does not solidify, and it has no effect on the embryo. What the Sages meant by female \u201cseed\u201d is the blood that collects in the mother\u2019s womb after intercourse, which fastens onto the male seed. In their opinion, the embryo is created from the female\u2019s red blood and from the man\u2019s white semen, so they call both of these \u201cseed.\u201d As the rabbinic expression has it, there are three partners in the creation of every person. The man emits white matter, from which come the sinews, the bones, and the white of the eye. The woman emits red, from which come the skin, the flesh, the blood, the hair, and the pupil of the eye. This is also the opinion of the physicians with respect to its formation. In the opinion of the Greek philosophers, however, the entire body of the fetus comes from the woman\u2019s blood; the only thing that comes from the man is the power called in their language hyle, which gives form to matter. For in a chicken egg there is no difference between one that is fathered by a male and one that is produced by a hen who rolls in the dirt, except that the one produces a chick and the other is infertile, since the basic heat of hyle has been withheld from it. If this is so, then the expression in our verse that has a woman \u201cbringing forth seed\u201d is like that of Isaiah, \u201cas the earth brings forth her growth and a garden makes the seed shoot up\u201d (Isa. 61:11)\u2014she is sprouting the seed that came into her from another source. Onkelos translates simply, \u201cWhen a woman conceives.\u201d Infirmity. Rashi takes this word to mean \u201cflow,\u201d but I have no idea from what source in the holy tongue he derives this meaning. But there may very well be a connection to the similar-sounding term in Deut. 7:15 that refers to illness, since (as the Sages tell us) the woman\u2019s head and limbs may feel heavy in this state. This is certainly Ibn Ezra\u2019s opinion. It may be referred to as an illness because of how she feels, but in fact the blood flow is simply a mechanism for cleansing her of the remaining blood. The Hebrew word actually refers to emotional pain: \u201cMy heart is sick within me\u201d (Jer. 8:18); \u201cBecause of this our hearts are sick\u201d (Lam. 5:17); \u201ceach of whom knows his own affliction\u201d (1 Kings 8:38). The woman\u2019s flow of blood is an affliction that makes her unclean despite the fact that it is a natural phenomenon. Similarly, Ps. 41:4 says of one who is suffering emotionally, \u201cThe LORD will sustain him on his sickbed.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people. We learn from this that these rules, and all that follow having to do with uncleanness, apply only to Jews and not to gentiles (Gersonides). When a woman at childbirth bears a male. When she gives birth naturally, not by Caesarean section (Hizkuni). She shall be unclean seven days. On the evening of the seventh day, she ritually immerses, even if she is still bleeding from the birth (Bekhor Shor). In the case of a multiple birth, the seven days begin after the birth of the last child (Hizkuni). As at the time of her menstrual infirmity. For one thing, she must immerse herself after dark, just as she does after menstruating (Bekhor Shor). Familiarity breeds contempt. The Torah established the seven days of menstrual separation so that her husband should love her as much when she becomes clean as he did on the day they were married (Hizkuni). Ordinarily a woman\u2019s period lasts one lunar quarter (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:3\u20134<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:3<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
On the eighth day. According to our Sages, this specifically means the eighth day, not at night. So a boy who is born half an hour before sunset can be circumcised at the age of six-and-a-half 24-hour days. For \u201cday\u201d in the Torah does not refer to a 24-hour period. The flesh of his foreskin. When used by itself, the Hebrew word refers literally to the foreskin; but in conjunction with another organ the word can be used metaphorically: \u201cCut away, therefore, the thickening about your hearts\u201d (Deut. 10:16); \u201cSee, I am of impeded lips,\u201d i.e., speech (Exod. 6:30); \u201cTheir ears are blocked\u201d (Jer. 6:10). Shall be circumcised. I believe the translations are correct here in taking this verb as the passive of \u05de\u05d5\u05dc. But it could conceivably be an active form of the verb \u05e0\u05de\u05dc found in Gen. 17:11. In this case our verse would mean \u201cHe [the father; or \u201cit,\u201d the court] shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Everyone is supposed to rejoice on the day of circumcision. But until the woman has immersed herself, she and her husband are forbidden to each other, which impedes their joy (Bekhor Shor). The Torah wished to have this commanded by Moses, not being satisfied to simply leave it with the command to Abraham in Gen. 17:9\u201314, lest we think that the Torah was not given entirely through Moses (Gersonides). It takes eight days for him to digest the rest of the unclean blood on which he was nourished in his mother\u2019s belly, at which point he is ritually pure and can enter into the holy covenant (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
She shall remain. Literally, she shall \u201csit\u201d in that state, but this Hebrew verb is used to mean \u201cremain\u201d: \u201cafter you had remained at Kadesh\u201d (Deut. 1:46). In a state of blood purification. Literally, \u201cin the bloods of purification.\u201d Even if she sees more blood come forth during the 33 days, she is clean during that period. As the translations have correctly noted, the \u05d4 in the word \u201cpurification\u201d is missing the dot that would indicate that it is \u201cher\u201d purification. The masculine form of the same word at the end of this verse does have that dot in the suffixed \u05d4. She shall not touch any consecrated thing. As we learn on B. Yev. 75a, \u201ctouch\u201d is used here in the sense of \u201ceat.\u201d The text emphasizes that \u201cshe shall not touch any consecrated thing\u201d to indicate that, even if under ordinary circumstances she is entitled to eat the priestly donations, she may not do so during this period. She has the same status as someone who has immersed himself during the day for purification purposes and is now waiting for the sun to set to complete his purification. The difference is that she immersed herself after the first seven days, and the \u201cday\u201d during which she is waiting for the sun to set is 33 days long. For she cannot bring the expiatory offering that finalizes her purification until the day after the sun has set on her 40th day.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In a state of blood purification. Rather, \u201cshe shall continue in the blood of purification\u201d (OJPS). This is not menstrual blood, but blood that is \u201cpure,\u201d i.e., ritually clean. In the talmudic dispute about this, the opinion that the blood of the first seven days comes from a different source than the blood of the next 33 days is giving the straightforward sense of the biblical text. The second source, that of the 33 days, is a clean source.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In a state of blood purification. This should correctly be \u201cin her state of blood purification\u201d; the grammatical signal that would indicate this is sometimes, as here, missing (e.g., Num. 32:42). With regard to the actual topic of the verse, this is blood that, unlike menstrual blood, does not cause uncleanness. For thirty-three days. God decreed a total period of 40 days for the male child, matching the time it took his form to reach completion in the womb, and double that for a female child, who takes twice as long\u2014a matter that is tried and true. She shall not touch any consecrated thing. Such as a tithe or a priestly donation or the flesh of a sacrifice of well-being. Nor enter the sanctuary. That is, the sanctified area: the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting or the courtyard of the Temple.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
She shall remain. If Rashi and the translations are correct, then it follows that she must wait another 33 days without touching anything sanctified or coming to the Temple, even though she is considered clean during those 33 days with regard to her husband. This would suggest that the following phrase should be translated as does OJPS, \u201cblood of purification.\u201d The point of phrasing it this way would be to inform us that, even though she may not experience any flow of blood during those days, she must still wait for that period to end because of the birth. The verb sit, then, would not mean remain, but wait, as in Hosea 3:3, \u201cYou are to go a long time without either fornicating or marrying; even I shall not cohabit with you.\u201d V. 2 tells us that she is unclean to her husband for seven days as at the time of menstruation, after which she returns to her husband. For the next 33 days, she is unclean with regard to the Temple and consecrated things even if she does not actually have any flow of blood during this period, but she is clean to her husband even if she does have a flow of blood. This is how Rashi understands it. As far as I am concerned, however, the correct interpretation is that, during the period when a woman has a flow of blood, everyone, men and women alike, keep her at a distance, and she dwells apart, not being counted as a person. For even her speech is unclean to them during this period, and the dust on which she treads is for them like dust decayed from the bones of the dead, as our Sages too have mentioned. Even her glance breeds danger. I have discussed all this in my comment to Gen. 31:35. Menstruating women in those days would live in a special tent. As Rachel told her father, \u201cLet not my lord take it amiss that I cannot rise before you, for the period of women is upon me\u201d (Gen. 31:35). Their custom during menstruation was not to walk, not even to put so much as a foot on the ground. The Torah makes anything on which a menstruant has sat or lain more unclean than something she has merely touched. Similarly, the Torah tells us that a leper must \u201csit\u201d outside the camp (13:46) and not move a step\u2014for the air around him is infectious. In our case of a woman who gives birth, she too must \u201csit\u201d for 33 days just as she did during the seven days of \u201cflow\u201d immediately after the birth. The Torah enforces this by prohibiting her from touching consecrated things or coming to the Temple. (The rabbinic interpretation of this \u201csitting\u201d is that it refers to a woman who has a flow of blood during the first 11 days of the 33-day period, classifying her as clean from the perspective of abnormal flow but unclean from the perspective of a woman\u2019s normal flow. In a state of blood purification. Rashi understands that any blood flow she may have during this period does not prevent her from becoming clean (by Torah law) at the end of the 33 days. Ibn Ezra too considers any blood flow she may experience during this period to be clean. They are thinking of the Hebrew word in its sense of ritual purity, but I understand the word \u201cpurification\u201d here as in the expression \u201cpure gold\u201d (Exod. 25:39)\u2014refined and purified. This usage is regular in the Bible: \u201cHe shall act like a smelter and purger of silver\u201d (Mal. 3:3). For thirty-three days. The point of the extra 33 days is that her body should be cleansed of the remnants of the blood and other foul liquids that accumulate in the body \u201cfrom birth, from the womb, from conception\u201d (Hosea 9:11), after which she can go to the Temple. Our Sages received the tradition that the contrast with the first seven days shows that during the 33 days she is unclean with regard to sacred things but permitted to her husband; as they put it, there is nothing sacred about her husband! The reason both of these periods are doubled is either Ibn Ezra\u2019s explanation (which follows the opinion of R. Ishmael) that the form of the female child takes twice as long to develop or (following the opinion of the Sages that both are developed after 41 days) the point would be that a female develops because the mother\u2019s womb is particularly chill and damp, which requires a longer period of cleansing. It is well known that chill diseases require much longer to heal than hot ones.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Her period of purification. This form of the word \u201cpurification\u201d appears only twice with the final \u05d4 and the dot that would indicate that it is \u201cher\u201d purification\u2014here and in v. 6 (Masorah). The Sages identify five descriptions of the appearance of blood from the unclean source. Blood that has any other appearance is not from this source, and is clean (Bekhor Shor). Since the woman has not had her period for nine months, this extra period of purification permits her body to rid itself of the blood that would otherwise have been cleansed from her monthly (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:5\u20137<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are these periods of uncleanness doubled to two weeks and 66 days (v. 5) when the woman bears a female child?
\n\u2666 Why must she bring a burnt offering and a sin offering (v. 6)? There seems to be no reason for a burnt offering, and she has certainly not committed any sin.
\n\u2666 Why is the burnt offering mentioned before the sin offering, rather than vice versa as has been customary up until now?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:5<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In a state of blood purification. The Hebrew uses a different preposition here than in v. 4. But the translations correctly understand that the meaning is the same.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If she bears a female. Experience confirms R. Ishmael\u2019s opinion. The same rules apply (just in case) if she bears a child who is a hermaphrodite or of indeterminate sex. The blood which nourishes a female is thicker than that which nourishes a male, and cleansing her body of it takes longer. Even the milk a new mother produces for a female is thicker than that she produces for a male (Gersonides). Women ordinarily feel the movement of a male fetus on the 41st day, a female fetus not until the 81st day. Males have more heat, and so are formed more quickly (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:6<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A lamb in its first year. The Hebrew says literally \u201ca son of its year.\u201d Without tradition, who could possibly explain to us whether this phrase meant \u201cnot less than a year old,\u201d \u201cnot more than a year old,\u201d or perhaps \u201cexactly a year old\u201d? For a burnt offering. Some say this burnt offering\u2014literally, a sacrifice that \u201carises\u201d\u2014is brought in case some improper thought arose in her mind in response to the pain she experienced during the birth. A sin offering. This would be to atone for anything improper she might actually have said out loud.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A burnt offering and \u2026 a sin offering. She brings the burnt offering first, in order to draw close to her Creator, who has miraculously preserved her through the pain and danger of childbirth. Then\u2014since, as the Sages say, pain and trouble come upon people in this world only on account of sin\u2014she brings an offering to expiate whatever sin she may have committed unwittingly. But the burnt offering is the primary offering, and it comes first (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall offer it. Since the text says \u201cit\u201d rather than \u201cthem,\u201d we learn that just one of the two offerings is strictly necessary for the purpose of permitting her to eat consecrated food. And which is it? The sin offering. For the text continues that the priest shall make expiation on her behalf. So it is the sacrifice that makes expiation for her on which her purification depends.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
She shall then be clean. She is then free to eat consecrated food. This is how the Sages explain it. According to them, one who has immersed to achieve ritual cleanness may eat the priestly donations as soon as the sun sets that evening. He or she may not, however, eat consecrated foods until after bringing a sacrificial offering to achieve expiation.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall offer it. That is, he shall offer each of them, the lamb and the pigeon or turtledove. The text does not bother to give the full details but simply mentions these offerings briefly. For example, it does not describe the pinching off of the bird\u2019s head (as it does in 1:15 and 5:8), and does not mention that the priest does not eat the flesh of the bird. Make expiation on her behalf. As I have explained in my comment to 1:4, he in effect ransoms her from the punishment that she would otherwise face (see my comment to v. 6). She shall then be clean from her flow of blood. This indicates that she does not naturally become clean until she has waited the specified number of days.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall offer it before the LORD and make expiation on her behalf; she shall then be clean from her flow of blood. A woman who has given birth has, as it were, \u201ca muddied spring, a ruined fountain\u201d (Prov. 25:26). After waiting through her period of cleansing\u2014or, if you prefer, the period that is required for the formation of the fetus\u2014she brings a ransom for her life that her flow should stop and she should be cleansed. For the Lord heals all flesh in a wondrous manner. The Sages, however, understood this in the context of her angrily swearing, as she crouched to give birth, \u201cI\u2019ll never have sex with my husband again!\u201d Since she swore this oath in a moment of great pain, and since she is after all subjugated to her husband, the Torah wished to provide her with expiation for her outburst. The thoughts of the Blessed One are profound and His mercies are manifold\u2014for He wishes to acquit His creatures of sin.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall offer it before the LORD. Even if she bears twins or more, she brings only one sin offering, because the purpose of this offering is a distancing from physicality. By contrast, in the case of actual sin, one offering per sin is required (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:8\u201313:1<\/p>\n
Leviticus 12:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
One for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. According to B. Zev. 90a, the bird for the burnt offering must be so designated first (which is why it is listed first in our verse). But the sin offering must still be performed first. She shall be clean. She is actually \u201cclean\u201d once she has immersed herself. But she is technically considered \u201cunclean\u201d until after the sacrifice.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If \u2026 her means do not suffice. As in 5:7 and 5:11, the Hebrew idiom has it that \u201cher hand does not find\u201d enough for a sheep. The priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be clean. This apparent repetition from v. 7 teaches that if fire priest does not make expiation on her behalf, she does not become clean. But this commandment is in effect only in the land of Israel.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. But they must be of the same kind, not one turtledove and one pigeon or vice versa (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:1<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron. To Aaron as well because he would ultimately be responsible for declaring people with these affections as either clean or unclean.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron. Since \u201cevery lawsuit and case of assault\u201d (Deut. 21:5) is subject to the priests\u2019 ruling, this utterance came to Aaron as well as to Moses (or, in our Sages\u2019 opinion, to Moses for him to say it to Aaron). Note that this passage does not add, \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people,\u201d as we found in 12:2 and elsewhere. For this chapter instructs the priests, when they identify people who are unclean, to isolate them and compel them to become clean; these instructions are not given to the people. At the beginning of ch. 14, describing the ritual by which a leper is to be cleansed, \u201cThe LORD spoke\u201d only \u201cto Moses,\u201d not to Aaron nor commanding that Moses speak to the people. For there was no more need to command an Israelite to become clean than there was to command a priest to offer the sacrifices that are involved\u2014things that both of them would perform gladly without being ordered to do so. In 15:2, we do find that phrase: \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people and say to them: When any man has a discharge issuing from his member.\u201d For that is a hidden matter and would not be recognized by someone else. So everyone must be commanded to inform the priest about such an affliction.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron. The chapter on skin affections follows the chapter on childbirth because an excess of blood unsuitable for childbearing can cause such affections in the newborn (Gersonides). These affections can be caused when a man sleeps with his wife while she is menstruating or having an abnormal flow. In the larger context of chs. 11\u201313, we see that eating unclean foods can also cause them, as can contact with corpses or carcasses. This section was addressed to Aaron as well as Moses because Aaron was expert in distinguishing between these various affections. The Torah does not pay this much attention to other diseases because they do not involve uncleanness (Abarbanel). Almost none of these affections have anything to do with the skin diseases recognized by physicians\u2014other than morphea and one or two others\u2014let alone with cancerous growths, which the Torah does not describe as \u201cunclean\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:2\u20133<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is leprosy, and leprosy alone, a matter for priests to deal with? It is certainly not the only contagious disease!<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A swelling, a rash, or a discoloration. These are all different types of \u201caffections,\u201d each one whiter than the one before it. The \u201cdiscoloration\u201d referred to here refers to stripes or streaks on the skin: \u201cNow, then, one cannot see the sun, for it is cloudy in the heavens\u201d (Job 37:21). To Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. The text here decrees that the identification of these affections as clean or unclean must be done by a priest.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In all of these next chapters referring to \u201caffections\u201d of the body, of fabrics, of houses\u2014their appearance, their times of isolation, white hair, black hair, yellow hair\u2014we really have nothing besides the straightforward sense of the text, nor is there any human expertise on these subjects that explains them. The interpretations given by the Sages, their rules, and the traditions they received from the sages who preceded them are essential for understanding these subjects. When a person has on the skin of his body. Rather, \u201cthe skin of his flesh\u2019 (OJPS), in contrast to an affection that occurs \u201con the head or in the beard\u201d (v. 29). A swelling. OJPS \u201ca rising\u201d is a bit more literal. The contrast with a discoloration is that a swelling is somewhat less white than a discoloration, which is an extremely bright white, as is indicated by the Hebrew root: \u201cThough it be bright in the heavens\u201d (Job 37:21). A discoloration therefore appears to be deeper than a swelling, as the sunlight is beneath the shadow; a \u201cswelling\u201d or \u201crising\u201d is so called because it appears higher than a discoloration. A rash. Rather, this word refers to either of the two secondary variants, one associated with the swelling and one with the discoloration. The Hebrew word really refers to something that is associated with something else, as in 1 Sam. 2:36, \u201cassign me to one of the priestly duties.\u201d That is how the Sages explain it. A scaly affection. The essence of such an affection is that its flesh becomes white: \u201cHe put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, his hand was encrusted with snowy scales!\u201d (Exod. 4:6). Our phrase \u201ca scaly affection\u201d is translated as \u201ca leprous affection\u201d in v. 3. This is the Hebrew term for such an affection when it is white.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A person. The text does not say \u201cany Israelite\u201d (as it does in 17:13 and 20:2); rather, the \u201cstranger\u201d mentioned separately in those verses is directly included in this commandment. The same language is found in 1:2, \u201ca person who presents an offering.\u201d For \u201cthere shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger\u201d (Exod. 12:49) with respect to sacrifice as well. There is of course no technical reason why a stranger needs to remain ritually clean; but he must be included here so that an Israelite does not become unclean through him. For leprosy is a communicable disease. A swelling. This Hebrew word is better translated as \u201can inflammation.\u201d A related word is used in Judg. 20:40 for a column of smoke. The connection between the two words is likely the fact that the nature of fire causes it to rise. A rash. \u201cA scab\u201d (OJPS) is closer to the Hebrew meaning. This root signifies attachment: \u201cPlease, assign me to one of the priestly duties, that I may have a morsel of bread to eat\u201d (1 Sam. 2:36); \u201cstrangers shall join them and shall cleave to the House of Jacob\u201d (Isa. 14:1). The Hebrew word really refers to an affliction that attaches itself to a particular spot on the body. A discoloration. It refers specifically to a bright spot: \u201cThough it be bright in the heavens\u201d (Job 37:21). This is an easily recognizable sign of disease. It shall be reported. Rather, \u201che shall be brought\u201d (OJPS) willy-nilly. Anyone who sees one of these signs on him must force him to come to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons. That is, to the High Priest or to any of the ordinary priests in other locations, such as Anathoth. The priests. They must be \u201cone of Aaron\u2019s sons\u201d who has not been disqualified from serving as priest.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A swelling, a rash, or a discoloration. See the comments of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. If they are correct, it would seem that the word translated \u201cswelling\u201d really refers to an affection caused by the burning, yellow bile, while a \u201cdiscoloration\u201d results from phlegm and a \u201crash\u201d from some combination of the phlegm and bile. The translations take \u201cswelling\u201d from what our Sages have said, that the Hebrew word refers to its height above the surrounding flesh. Compare, from the same root, \u201cAgainst all the high mountains and all the lofty hills\u201d (Isa. 2:14). The word translated \u201crash\u201d always refers to a subcategory. That is the sense of the verse cited by Ibn Ezra: \u201cPlease, assign me to one of the priestly duties.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A rash. Rather, \u201ca secondary characteristic\u201d; the word comes in between \u201cswelling\u201d and \u201cdiscoloration\u201d to show that it pertains to both. The secondary characteristic of each (see the commentaries) is treated just like the primary category, for no specific instructions are given for the secondary characteristics. But according to the straightforward approach to the text, the sapa\u1e25at is indeed a rash, just like the mispa\u1e25at of vv. 6\u20138 (Bekhor Shor). All of these affections must attain the size of a patch suitable for growing six hairs on each side, that is, an area of 36 square hairs (Gersonides). It shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. If the affection is diagnosed by a non-priestly expert, he must still bring the man to a priest, even one who is an idiot, and tell him what to say (Hizkuni). It was preferable to report it to Aaron, if possible, since he was the outstanding expert. But the expertise of the priests in general is not in disease but in the rules of uncleanness (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If hair in the affected patch has turned white. Hair that was originally dark must have turned white inside the affected patch. As NJPS makes clear, \u201chair\u201d is a collective noun here. At least two individual hairs must have turned white. Deeper than the skin of his body. Things that are white appear deeper; notice how a shadow appears to lie atop a sunlit area. He shall pronounce him unclean. The translations do not quite have the nuance of this expression. He shall tell the person, \u201cYou are unclean.\u201d The text has declared this white hair to be a sign of uncleanness.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If \u2026 the affection appears to be deeper. That is, if it is white.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If hair in the affected patch has turned white. This idiom, which would ordinarily be expressed in Hebrew by the passive, is here expressed (as in English) by an active verb. The affection appears to be deeper than the skin. The affection goes deeper than the skin. (\u201cLower\u201d of v. 20 and elsewhere is not an exact synonym for \u201cdeep\u201d; it is less deep.) He shall pronounce him unclean. The English translations are correct.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Deeper than the skin of his body. Rashi\u2019s misunderstanding of this phrase led him to say about the opposite phrase in v. 4, \u201cI do not know how to explain this.\u201d His difficulty is that, if indeed it is the whiteness of the discoloration that makes it look deep, there cannot possibly be a white discoloration that does not look deep. But we can fix this difficulty. What is essential in this description is that the hair in the affected patch has turned white. That is what makes it look \u201cdeeper than the skin of his body.\u201d When \u201cthe hair in it has not turned white\u201d (v. 4), it does not look deeper than the skin. The sun does not look deeper than the shade if there is something black scattered upon it. Hair is dark by nature and counteracts the apparent deepness of the affection. But if the hair in it turns white or yellow, the lightness makes it look deeper than what surrounds it (to someone who is not examining it closely).
\nAll the same, what Rashi says about anything white appearing to be deep does not seem correct to me. What about the \u201cwhite swelling\u201d of v. 10? Rabbinic literature describes the following two signs of leprosy: a swelling as white as the skin of an egg and a swelling as white as wool. One cannot get much whiter than these, yet they are not deep but high. One might think a \u201cswelling\u201d is high only with respect to a \u201cdiscoloration,\u201d both of them being deeper than the skin. But the text nowhere refers to a swelling as being deeper than the skin. What I think is that there is a kind of white that strikes the eye with a brightness so burnished that the eye cannot absorb it, creating an illusion of depth. The darkness of a shadow makes it easy to look at, while the eye avoids the brightness of the surrounding sunlight, making the dark area appear to be atop the bright one.
\nIn our case, if the white discoloration has dark hair in it, the eye is not fooled and can view it easily. The swelling too, even if it is white, is not so white that the eye avoids it, and so it does not create the illusion of depth. This kind of whiteness can in fact create the illusion of height, as when the stars appear to be \u201con\u201d the sky. With the \u201cwhite discoloration streaked with red\u201d of v. 19, the effect of the red counteracts that of the white enough so that it merely appears \u201clower than the rest of the skin,\u201d not deeper. Note that, in a straightforward reading, this phrase applies only to the discoloration, not to the \u201cwhite swelling\u201d also mentioned in v. 19, though v. 21 applies to both of them. With regard to the bum of v. 24, it is described both in terms of depth (v. 25) and lowness (v. 26) due to the fact that it may be either white or white streaked with red. In either case, it must be \u201cnot lower than the rest of the skin\u201d (v. 26) to be clean.
\nA leprous affection. The Torah wished Israel to be both ritually pure and clean of body. It therefore distanced them from this disease at its very beginnings. For the symptoms described here are not full-blown leprosy, merely preliminary indications of it. The physicians say in their books that we should fear that discolorations of the kind described here might lead to leprosy. So our text describes \u201ca leprous affection,\u201d not full-blown leprosy. But what the priest sees in v. 8 after isolating the person may perhaps be full-blown leprosy. In v. 25, when the priest pronounces someone unclean despite the fact that he merely has \u201ca leprous affection,\u201d the intent is that the priest must pronounce him unclean already because he has an affection that is sure to develop into leprosy, and he must be separated at once from the rest of the people. Similarly, in v. 22 we find the priest declaring someone unclean because he has an affection so big that it will clearly not heal but get larger every day. When Rashi says of the white hair in such an affection that \u201cThe text has declared this white hair to be a sign of uncleanness,\u201d what he really means is that this is \u201cthe handwriting on the wall,\u201d a sign of a decree of the Most High. An affection where the hair does not turn white is merely a blotch on the skin, not an affection that is at all harmful.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
On the skin of his body. Literally, \u201con the skin of his flesh\u201d; as the Hebrew words are used, the \u201cskin\u201d is part of the flesh, its upper layer (Kimhi). If hair in the affected patch has turned white. If there was white hair there before the affection arose, it is not a sign of uncleanness (Bekhor Shor). A leprous affection. The text refers to the beginning stage of the disease as \u201can affection,\u201d to the developing stages as \u201ca leprous affection,\u201d and to the end stage as \u201cleprosy\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:4<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the Torah command us to do nothing but isolate the affected person (v. 4), rather than suggest treatment for him, as Elisha did for Naaman in 2 Kings 5?
\n\u2666 Why does the Torah assign judgment about the leper\u2019s cleanness or uncleanness to a priest rather than to a medical specialist who would understand more about it than simply whether the rash has spread or there is a white hair?
\n\u2666 Since it is only the person who has been declared definitively unclean who must \u201cdwell apart,\u201d why does the Torah insist that the person with possible leprosy be isolated?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Which does not appear to be deeper than the skin. I do not know how to explain this. The priest shall isolate the affected person. He is confined to a particular house and must not appear until a week is up, at which time the signs will determine whether or not he is unclean.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Which does not appear to be deeper than the skin. Not being white in one of the ways described in M. Neg. 1:1.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days. Literally, the priest is to isolate the affection; but of course in practical terms it is the person who is isolated. He must wait seven days because the course of most illnesses alters on the seventh day.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days. He must not look at him in between, so as not to get insensibly used to a small, daily growth in the affection. It would not help to draw a mark around the affection, since the person with the affection might simply erase the mark and redraw it (Bekhor Shor). I have seen this interpreted to mean that he is imprisoned for seven days so that his friends and relatives cannot bring him remedies to remove the symptoms rather than letting nature take its course. But why would the priest wish to prevent this? Exod. 21:19 speaks explicitly of medical intervention (Abarbanel). Since these affections are sent upon the person as punishment, the seven days are meant to rouse him to repent. As Job 36:10 tells us, \u201cHe opens their understanding by discipline, and orders them back from mischief\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:5\u20136<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Has remained unchanged in color. \u201cStay in its appearance\u201d (OJPS) is a bit closer to the Hebrew. Not only its color but its size as well must have stayed as they originally were. The priest shall isolate him for another seven days. But if it has already spread within the first week, he is definitely unclean.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If the affection has remained unchanged in color. Literally the Hebrew idiom says \u201cif it has stayed in its eyes\u201d\u2014the eyes being the place where things \u201cappear.\u201d All the commentators, however, interpret this idiom to mean \u201cif it has stayed itself,\u201d that is, remained as it was. If the disease has not spread. The Hebrew verb here, \u05e4\u05e9\u05d4, appears to be related to \u05e4\u05d5\u05e9, \u201cto move rapidly\u201d: \u201cTheir steeds gallop\u201d (Hab. 1:8); \u201cYour people are scattered over the hills\u201d (Nah. 3:18). The priest shall isolate him for another seven days. More literally, \u201cthe priest shall isolate him for seven days a second time.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If the affection has remained unchanged in color. See Rashi\u2019s comment, and note the following verses: \u201cNow the manna was like coriander seed, and in color it was like bdellium\u201d (Num. 11:7); \u201cwith an awe-inspiring gleam as of crystal\u201d (Ezek. 1:22). But the Sifra reads the idiom literally: \u201cif the affection has remained in his eyes.\u201d The reference would be to the priest who is examining him, and whether, in the priest\u2019s eyes, the affection has neither changed its location nor spread on the skin. The idiom \u201cin the eyes\u201d is regularly used in rabbinic Hebrew to mean \u201cin the opinion of\u201d: \u201cthus it appears in my eyes.\u201d When the \u201ccaptain of fifty\u201d says to Elijah, \u201cI beg you, have regard for my life!\u201d (2 Kings 1:13), he literally says, \u201cLet my life be worthy in your eyes,\u201d that is, in your opinion, in your thinking. But our verse also implies that the priest is to judge whether or not the affection has spread by using his eyes. He need not measure it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
On the seventh day. He need not wait seven full days; moreover, if he must be isolated \u201cfor another seven days,\u201d this day counts both as the last day of the first seven and as the first day of the next seven (Hizkuni). The priest shall examine him. \u201cFor the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and men seek rulings from his mouth; for he is a messenger of the LORD of Hosts\u201d (Mal. 2:7). The priest instructs him to examine his deeds and to pray, and the priest prays for him as well (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the affection has faded. If its color has faded, he is clean. But if its color has remained unchanged, or if it has spread, he is unclean. A rash. This is an affection, but one that is clean. He shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. Having had to be isolated, he is considered to be unclean and requires immersion. But he is not \u201cdefinitively unclean\u201d (see my next comment).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If the affection has faded. Many scholars think the verb here means \u201cdarkened\u201d; compare the similar word in Gen. 27:1, \u201chis eyes were too dim to see.\u201d They think that the \u201cdull\u201d white discolorations of v. 39 are streaked with black as those of v. 19 are \u201cstreaked with red.\u201d But in my opinion this word is the opposite of \u201cto spread.\u201d The implication of the word in Genesis is not that his vision had darkened but that it had lessened. One finds a similar meaning in 1 Sam. 3:13, where Eli is told that his family will be punished because \u201chis sons committed sacrilege at will and he did not restrict them.\u201d In our verse, the implication of the word is that the affection is understood to be restricted in its scope because it has not spread to another location. But the verse makes clear that these are two different indications: (1) that the affected area has grown smaller, and (2) that the affection has not spread to another location. The priest shall pronounce him clean, for it was simply a rash. But if the rash should subsequently spread, he is unclean after all.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If the affection has faded and has not spread on the skin. Rashi\u2019s explanation of the key verb here as \u201cfaded,\u201d followed by NJPS\u2014meaning that if the color of the affection has remained unchanged then he is unclean even if it has not spread\u2014is in actual fact the meaning of the verse. But following rabbinic interpretation this is not so. According to M. Neg. 1:3, we are to keep him isolated if it remains unchanged at the end of the first week but release him if it continues unchanged at the end of the second week. The Sifra says the same thing, contrasting this situation with that of cloth, where we keep it isolated at the end of the first week but burn it at the end of the second week. Rashi himself explains it this way in his commentary to B. Meg. 8b. In fact, the Sages tell us that, no matter whether it has changed from snow-white to the color of whitewash or that of an egg\u2014and certainly if its color is unchanged\u2014as long as it has not spread, he is to be declared clean. If this is so, then our verse must be understood as describing a \u201cdimming\u201d (see OJPS) of the affection from one of the four shades of white to another. Even if its color has changed in this way, as long as it has not spread, it is a rash. So that you should not think that, since the affection has changed its appearance to that of a different affection, it must be examined once again from the beginning, the text says specifically that he is clean. The same rule applies if the whiteness of the affection has intensified rather than dimmed. The text has already specified that it is growth, not a change in color, that indicates uncleanness. Again, \u201cfading\u201d refers to a change from one of the four diagnostic shades of white to another. If the whiteness of the affection has faded beyond that, then it is healed and there is no affection there, in which case \u201cspreading\u201d does not make the person unclean. The Sifra explains it more or less this way.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. Since in the interim he was in a state of possible uncleanness, he most likely did not take special care to avoid uncleanness, and so must wash his clothes and immerse himself (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:7\u201312<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest shall pronounce him unclean. Being declared definitively unclean, when it is time for him to be cleansed he must shave and perform the ritual of the two birds described in 14:1\u201311. It is leprosy. \u201cIt\u201d being the rash. Unlike the rash of v. 6, this rash is leprosy. If you are following in the Hebrew text, note that \u201cleprosy\u201d is feminine and takes a feminine pronoun; \u201caffection\u201d is masculine.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
It is leprosy. It is definitely leprosy, and he must \u201cdwell apart\u201d (v. 46) until he is cured and can bring the bird offering described in Leviticus 14.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is leprosy. The word does indeed refer to a disease. See my comment to Exod. 23:28, \u201cI will send a plague ahead of you.\u201d Some think that one cannot \u201csend\u201d an intangible, but this argument is demonstrated to be wrong by the following verses: \u201cHe sent forth His word and healed them\u201d (Ps. 107:20); \u201cFor this time I will send all My plagues\u201d (Exod. 9:14); \u201cHe sent forth His burning anger upon them\u201d (Ps. 78:49).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:9<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall be reported. See my comment to this phrase in v. 2.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When a person has a scaly affection. This is one of only 11 verses in the Bible that both begin and end with the letter \u05e0 (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A white swelling which has turned some hair white, with a patch of undiscolored flesh in the swelling. If a bit of the whiteness in the swelling has returned to the color of ordinary flesh, this too is a sign of uncleanness. It will be easier to understand my point from OJPS, which should read not \u201cand there be quick raw flesh\u201d but \u201cor there be quick raw flesh.\u201d White hairs without a patch of undiscolored flesh, or a patch of undiscolored flesh without white hairs, or even such a patch of undiscolored flesh in any of the affections mentioned here are all signs of uncleanness.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
A patch of undiscolored flesh. This is not cooked flesh but raw, living flesh. (Compare OJPS \u201cquick raw flesh.\u201d) The implication is that a new piece of flesh has grown in the midst of the affection.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Which has turned some hair white. Some hair that was previously dark. A patch of undiscolored flesh. Rather, \u201cquick raw flesh\u201d (OJPS), that is, flesh that is \u201calive,\u201d to which meaning our word is related. Flesh that is insensitive is not \u201cquick.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A white swelling which has turned some hair white. V. 3 has already explained that hair which has turned white is a sign of uncleanness. Our verse is therefore concerned solely with the patch of undiscolored flesh, which in and of itself is another sign of uncleanness. Our verse is therefore to be understood as follows (adapting the OJPS translation, which is closer to the original Hebrew syntax): \u201cif there be a white rising in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, or there be quick raw flesh in the rising.\u201d The white hair is mentioned again here in connection with a swelling (just as v. 4 mentions it in connection with a discoloration) to teach us that white hair is a sign of uncleanness in either of them. Our Sages interpret the verse to indicate that the patch of flesh must be large enough to contain \u201csome\u201d white hair, that is, a minimum of two hairs.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Which has turned some hair white. \u201cWhich\u201d is the third-person, feminine-singular pronoun, ordinarily written in the Torah like the masculine pronoun \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0; this is one of only 11 cases in the Torah where it is spelled \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0, as it normally is in the Bible and elsewhere in Hebrew. See also v. 21 (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is chronic leprosy. Rather, \u201cit is an old leprosy\u201d (OJPS) underneath the patch of undiscolored flesh. It appears healthy on top, but underneath it is a wound full of pus. So you must not think, \u201cSince there is undiscolored skin here, I will declare it clean.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Chronic leprosy. Rather, \u201can old leprosy\u201d (OJPS), a preexisting condition. He need not isolate him. More precisely, \u201che shall not cause him to be isolated.\u201d This verb conjugation implies that the priest orders someone else to isolate the man (or, in this case, does not do so).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Wherever the priest can see. The priest who checks him must, therefore, be a priest whose vision is undimmed.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to foot. More literally, if it \u201cblossoms\u201d over the skin. Such \u201cblossoming\u201d is not a sign of cleanness until it has covered the entire body (except for those parts ruled out by the Sages in M. Neg. 8:5). But the verse literally says \u201cthe skin of the affection.\u201d He must turn completely white from head to foot, and the skin of the affection must be the same white. If the affection subsequently turns the \u201cdull white\u201d of a tetter, or even if it heals, he is unclean.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Wherever the priest can see. But the priest may not examine the person\u2019s private parts. A man is examined dressed as he would be to hoe or pick olives, a woman as she would be to shape the dough or suckle her child (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:13\u201323<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 If the eruption completely covers the person\u2019s skin, shouldn\u2019t this make him completely unclean? Why is he pronounced clean (v. 13) in this condition?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:13<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean, for he has turned all white. Rather, \u201che shall pronounce the affection clean \u2026 for it has turned all white.\u201d The affection has come completely out of his body and left it. The priest declares that this particular affection cannot make others unclean.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
As soon as undiscolored flesh appears in it. V. 10 has already explained that such a patch is a sign of uncleanness. Our verse must be referring to one of the 24 \u201cextremities\u201d (the fingers, the toes, the two ears, the nose, and the penis) that cannot otherwise become unclean on account of patches of undiscolored flesh, because (since the extremities have different sides) the affection cannot all be seen at the same time. If, however, the extremity is so swollen that it is possible to see the entire patch of undiscolored flesh at once, this verse teaches us that it is to be considered unclean. Our verse literally says \u201con the day when it appears\u201d: there is a particular day when you may look at him and a day when you may not. Our Sages determined from this expression that one does not look at a groom for such purposes during the seven days of the wedding celebration\u2014neither at him, nor at his garments, nor at his house. Similarly one does not do such an examination during a festival.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is leprosy. \u201cIt,\u201d that flesh, is leprosy. \u201cFlesh\u201d is a masculine word in Hebrew.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:16<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If the undiscolored flesh again turns white. \u201cIf\u201d is indeed the correct translation here, though the Hebrew word could conceivably mean \u201cwhen.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
An inflammation. As both the English translations imply, the reference is to a heating up of the flesh. But the inflammation described here is the result of an injury, not a burn (which will be discussed in vv. 24 and following). It heals. \u201cIt\u201d being the inflammation, not the flesh, for another skin affection arises in its place.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
An inflammation. Our Sages explain this as being caused by the heat of wounds that were inflicted on him by whipping. Inflammations caused by actual fire are treated in vv. 24\u201328.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A white discoloration streaked with red. As OJPS says, it is \u201creddish-white.\u201d That is, the affection is not solid white but has both colors in a variegated mix of white and red.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A white discoloration streaked with red. Whether \u201creddish-white\u201d (OJPS) or partially red and partially white.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A white discoloration streaked with red. Like a glass of milk into which a few drops of blood have fallen (Bekhor Shor). The method of evaluating such discolorations has actually been passed down orally from one person to the next directly from the mouth of Moses: the appearance of two drops of blood in the glass of milk is that of a \u201cdiscoloration,\u201d four drops that of a \u201cswelling,\u201d eight drops that of a secondary discoloration, 16 drops that of a secondary swelling (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It appears lower than the rest of the skin. It is not actually deeper, but looks deeper because of its whiteness\u2014again, as the sunlight appears to be beneath the shadow.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is an affection. \u201cIt,\u201d the swelling or the discoloration.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the discoloration remains stationary. More literally, \u201cin its place\u201d (OJPS). It is the scar of the inflammation. An \u201cimpression\u201d of the inflammation, as Onkelos has it. An impression left by the heat is still recognizable on the flesh, a kind of shriveling or wrinkling of the skin due to the heat.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If the discoloration remains stationary. Literally, \u201cif it stays in its place\u201d (compare OJPS). For there are some such affections that move from place to place. The scar. The Hebrew word used here implies something burned into the skin: \u201cevery face from south to north shall be scorched by it\u201d (Ezek. 21:3).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:24\u201329<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The patch from the burn is a discoloration. As the burn heals, it turns into a discoloration, whether streaked or entirely white. The indications of a burn are the same as those of an inflammation. So why does the text treat them separately? To indicate that the two are nonetheless to be considered different. A leprous affection must be the size of a bean to be treated as this passage describes, and a burn smaller than a bean does not combine with an adjoining inflammation smaller than a bean even if together they would be as large as a bean.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Either white streaked with red, or white. That is, plain white.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:28<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
But if the discoloration has remained stationary \u2026 and it is faded. See my comments to vv. 23 and 6. Note that in v. 23 there is no mention of whether the discoloration has \u201cfaded\u201d (that is, grown smaller), since it stayed as it was.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:29<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On the head or in the beard. The text distinguishes between an affection of the flesh, which is marked by white hair, and one of an area where hair grows, which is marked by yellow hair.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A man or a woman. Since only men have beards, \u201ca woman\u201d is specified here to make clear that the rules about an affection on the head apply to her as well. (Note that v. 40 specifies \u201ca man,\u201d since vv. 40\u201341 discuss male pattern baldness: contrast vv. 2 and 9, which say \u201ca person.\u201d) The Hebrew of our verse says more literally \u201ca man or woman who has an affection,\u201d using the masculine pronoun for \u201cwho\u201d in this case because of the reference to the beard.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
On the head or in the beard. From Rashi\u2019s comment, it would seem that the difference between an affection of the head or beard and one of the skin is the change in the color of the hair\u2014yellow in the head or beard versus white on the skin of the flesh. But how can he say this? He himself, in his comment to v. 43, points out that a skin affection is diagnosed by means of the four kinds of white (a swelling and its secondary characteristic, a discoloration and its secondary characteristic), and that an affection of the hair or beard is not diagnosed in this way. The text mentions (in v. 32) only the signs by which the final decision is made: that there is yellow hair in it and that it spreads. Rashi assumed that the term \u201cscall\u201d of v. 30 was intended to identify this particular affection by a known name. That is, the other affections are described as well as named, but this one is simply named. Only afterward are the indications that decisively diagnose it given. That is Rashi\u2019s view of a \u201cscall.\u201d It further appears from Rashi\u2019s comment to v. 40 that if a man\u2019s head goes bald, he cannot have a scall, and the rules given in our verse about an affection \u201con the head\u201d do not apply to his head.
\nBut all this is not so. When there is actually hair on the head or in the beard, they do not become unclean by any affection whatsoever. It is only if the hair that was originally there disappears, leaving a smooth, open space, and if thin, yellow hair sprouts in the bald spot, that he has this affection. It is called a scall because it appears on the scalp after the hair has been \u201cscalped\u201d from it. The name is a meaningful one, not simply a word as Rashi thinks. The natural hair must have disappeared from an area of the scalp the size of a bean before the affection called a scall can form. The rabbinic discussion of the subject makes clear that thin, yellow hair growing alongside the person\u2019s original hair is not a scall. The text did not state all of this explicitly because it is obvious that an affection cannot \u201cappear to go deeper than the skin\u201d (v. 30)\u2014as the sunlight is deeper than the shadow\u2014if the natural dark hair is still there. The text simply describes a medical situation that actually occurs in people and then gives it the name \u201cscall\u201d to make clear that one is not unclean unless the affection has caused that part of the scalp to become hairless. The opinion of most commentators is that there need be no discoloration or swelling or either of their secondary characteristics, nor even any change at all in the skin. It is precisely the loss of hair in a spot the size of a bean that constitutes the affection, and if thin, yellow hair sprouts in the place, then he is unclean. As vv. 35\u201336 make clear, it is the symptoms of yellow hair and of spreading that make one unclean. It makes no difference whether the affection appears \u201cdeeper than the skin\u201d or not. The Sifra spends a great deal of time discussing this. The point of v. 30 is to insist that there can be no affection of the head or beard until the natural hair is gone. Comparing these rules to those for skin affections, we see that the rules for affections of the hair and beard are both more and less strict\u2014less strict, in that the appearance of white hair (diagnostic of a skin affection) is unimportant, but more strict in that the appearance of thin, yellow hair (which is meaningless in a skin affection) is significant.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:30\u201333<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
There is thin yellow hair in it. That is, the originally dark hair in it has turned yellow. It is a scall. This happens to be the word for an affection in a place where hair grows.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
A scall. Leprosy of the hair is referred to as a netek in Hebrew, since the hair falls out, mitnatek, on account of it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Yellow. The etymologically similar word in Arabic suggests that the reference is to an off-white color. It is a scall. Words from this Hebrew root refer to the separation of strands: \u201cWhereat he pulled the tendons apart, as a strand of tow comes apart at the touch of fire\u201d (Judg. 16:9). In this case of course the reference is to hair.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Thin yellow hair. The reference is not to hair that is long and thin, but hair that is short and defective (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
There is no black hair in it. But if there is black hair in it, he is clean and there is no need to isolate him. Black hair is a sign of cleanness in scalls, as we see from v. 37.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If \u2026 there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person. If there is black hair in it, he is completely clean and does not require isolation; see v. 37.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The scall affection. This expression implies that affections on the hairless scalp would have the same four shades of white as the affections that occur on the rest of the body. This demands further study on the basis of T. Neg. 1:2, which seems to say that an affection on the scalp can be like one on the skin or even have an appearance different from those described in the text\u2014e.g., a dark-colored affection on the white skin of the scalp like that called by the physicians \u201cblack morphea.\u201d As I said in my comment to v. 29, the text provides no description of the affections of the scalp as it does for affections of the skin. Vv. 40\u201344 explain that a scall can only occur when the hairless area continues to be completely surrounded by hair. If the hair is completely gone in one direction, an affection in that area is treated like an affection of the skin. For many men naturally lose their hair, whether on top, in front, or in the back, and this is not a result of disease. Only when the hair falls out of a particular spot on the head or in the beard is there an affection. Both Arabic and our European languages have terms for this. But an affection on the skin where one has gone naturally bald is treated like an affection anywhere else on the body (except that, as the Sages have pointed out, the growth of white hair in such a spot does not make one unclean). Some commentators understand that the purpose of this section is to differentiate between a scall (where the hair may grow back after he is healed) and ordinary hair loss\u2014whether the hair fell out naturally or was deliberately removed by a depilatory cream\u2014where the hair will never grow back. This, in any case, is the opinion of the French scholars in their discussion of Tractate Nega\u2019im, and the text tends to support their views. There are treatments for all the various diseases of the scalp\u2014fox disease and snakepath and so forth\u2014but there is no treatment for baldness.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it. If it has spread, or yellow hair has appeared, he is automatically unclean.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The person with the scall shall shave himself. He shall shave around the scall. But without shaving the scall. He must leave two hairs next to it all the way around so that it will later be possible to recognize whether it has spread. If it spreads past the hairs into the shaved area, he is unclean.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The person with the scall shall shave himself. That is, he shall shave his head or his beard, wherever the scall is, but without shaving the scall.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall. The straightforward sense is that he must be careful not to pass the razor over the place where the scall is. Even though there is no hair there, dragging the razor over it will scrape the skin, which may cause hair to grow. For those who have scales on the scalp and those who are losing their hair will scrape the place and even cut grooves in it with a scalpel. The Sifra, however, explains that at least two hairs must be left around the scall on every side so that it can be determined whether it spreads. Onkelos too translates: \u201che shall shave around the scall.\u201d The translations take et here as the marker of the direct object, but in fact it is being used as in 1 Sam. 30:21, \u201cDavid came forward toward the troops and greeted them.\u201d So our verse should read (following OJPS, which is closer to the Hebrew syntax): \u201cbut toward the scall shall he not shave.\u201d Or perhaps it simply means \u201cwith.\u201d In this case the relative pronoun is missing, but there are many other examples of this.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The person with the scall shall shave himself. The \u05d2 of the verb \u201cshave\u201d is to be written especially large (Masorah). Even a nazirite, who would otherwise be forbidden to do so (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:34\u201341<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:34<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall wash his clothes. It goes without saying that he himself must wash in water as well.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:35<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If \u2026 the scall should spread on the skin after he has been pronounced clean. V. 36 tells us only that he is unclean if the scall has spread after he has been declared clean. But what if it spreads before this? The double Hebrew verb form of \u201cif the scall should spread\u201d here in our verse indicates that if the scall is discovered to have spread in the examination at the end of the first week or the second week, he is also unclean (though this is not explicitly stated in those cases).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:36<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest need not look for yellow hair. Literally, as OJPS has it, he \u201cshall not seek\u201d for it, but the implication is that he need not examine him for it. The term implies careful discrimination: \u201cHe must not look out for good as against bad\u201d (27:33).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:37<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it. He is clean even if red or blond hair has grown in it, because it says \u201cand hair.\u201d The extra detail indicated by and is that the text means his natural hair, even if it is not black. What then does the pathological \u201cthin yellow hair\u201d resemble? Light, metallic gold. \u201cGold\u201d and \u201cyellow\u201d are almost the same word in Hebrew. He is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean. But someone who is unclean does not become clean simply because a priest has pronounced him clean.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:38<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Discolorations. See my comment to v. 2.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If a man or a woman has the skin of the body streaked with white discolorations. The text now turns to affections that are not leprous, though they might seem to be so at first glance (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:39<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A dull white. Their whiteness is not bright, but faded. A tetter. Like the whiteness visible on the flesh of a red-complexioned man; the word for this is \u201ca tetter.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is a tetter. This word is a hapax legomenon in the Bible, though the root is well known in rabbinic Hebrew.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A tetter. This \u201cdull white\u201d is the whitest shade that is clean; anything whiter than this is unclean (Kimhi). The freckling to which this refers is caused by an imbalance of the humors; the same thing, as the naturalists tell us, causes some birds to have feathers of different colors (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:40<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald, he is clean. At least, he does not have a scall. He is no longer examined there according to the rules for affections of the hair, but such places are treated like ordinary flesh: he is examined to see whether the affection has spread or undiscolored flesh has appeared in it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If a man loses the hair of his head. Hebrew has a specific verb that means \u201cto lose the hair\u201d: \u201cI offered my back to the floggers, and my cheeks to those who tore out my hair\u201d (Isa. 50:6). Bald. This is a different word from that used in v. 41 (which see). If a man \u201closes the hair of his [entire] head,\u201d this is the Hebrew word that is used.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Bald. The Torah differentiates between baldness at the back and baldness at the front and sides, even though the rules for dealing with them are the same, because (as medical texts tell us) the back of the head is governed by phlegm and the front and sides by blood and black bile. A similar difference caused the Torah to treat inflammations and burns separately, though they follow the same rules (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:41<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he loses the hair on the front part of his head. Literally, \u201cthe face side of his head.\u201d Hebrew has one word for baldness on the front and sides of the head, used here, and a different word for baldness at the back of the head, used in v. 40.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If he \u2026 becomes bald at the forehead. The adjective translated \u201cbald\u201d in this verse is not found in any other passage in the Bible. In my opinion, the word used in v. 40 refers to the top of the head, not (like this one) to the front. Note that women are not mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:42\u201347<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the Torah turn to a discussion of fabric (v. 47) before describing how the leprous person is to be cleansed, which it waits until ch. 14 to do?
\n\u2666 How can the text refer to \u201cthe plague of leprosy\u201d (OJPS, v. 47) in a piece of cloth, which is not a living thing but an object to which notions of health and sickness do not apply? (The same question applies to the \u201cplague\u201d of \u201cleprosy\u201d affecting houses in ch. 14.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:42<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A white affection streaked with red. In fact, since this is called \u201can affection,\u201d we know that all the various shades of white apply to it as well. (See my comment to v. 2 and the end of my comment to v. 43.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:43<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Like the leprosy of body skin in appearance. See vv. 2 and following. He is declared unclean on the basis of four shades of white and evaluated over the course of two weeks, not like the case of an inflammation or a burn (where he is evaluated over the course of only a single week), and not like the case of a scall, which occurs in the hair and is not evaluated on the basis of the four indications of v. 2: (1) the swelling, white as wool; (2) its alternative characteristic, a whiteness like the skin of an egg; (3) the discoloration, white as snow; and (4) its alternative characteristic, a whiteness like that of whitewash.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Like the leprosy of body skin in appearance. Like the leprosy that would appear elsewhere on the body.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:44<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He has the affection on his head. This would seem to refer only to a scall. Since the Hebrew idiom by which we are told that the priest pronounces him unclean uses the verb twice, we understand that all the different forms of skin affection mentioned in this chapter are included.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:45<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
His head shall be left bare. Rather, \u201cthe hair of his head shall go loose\u201d (OJPS); it shall remain unshorn. He shall cover over his upper lip. Literally, \u201che shall cover over his mustache\u201d\u2014as does a mourner. And he shall call out, \u201cUnclean! Unclean!\u201d He lets everyone know that he is unclean so that they can keep away from him.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
His clothes shall be rent. So that he looks strange and can be recognized as he moves about. Or perhaps the reference is to mourning, which would explain why his head shall be left bare. The point is that he should mourn over the evil he has done. For this affection has come upon him on account of his evil deeds. He shall cover over his upper lip. Rather, \u201chis mustache.\u201d The two words are etymologically related in Hebrew, but this is a separate word, not simply a suffixed form of \u201clip.\u201d He shall \u201ccover\u201d it with his garment: \u201cYou are clothed in glory and majesty, wrapped in a robe of light\u201d (Ps. 104:1\u20132). The point of this is to keep his breath from harming others by spreading the disease. \u201cUnclean! Unclean!\u201d The repetition implies that he must call this out continually while he is walking on a road in an inhabited area, so that people can take care to avoid him.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
His clothes shall be rent. He performs these signs of mourning even if he is the High Priest, who would otherwise be forbidden to do so (Hizkuni). His head shall be left bare. NJPS is correct. This cannot refer to leaving one\u2019s hair uncut, since this condition does not take effect until the hair is left uncut for 30 days, and our text calls for something that is done immediately. We learn from covering over the upper lip that the text is discussing variations on how one\u2019s hair is revealed or concealed (Gersonides). He shall call out, \u201cUnclean! Unclean!\u201d According to the Sages, he identifies himself publicly as unclean so that the public may beg God to show mercy upon him (Bekhor Shor). Since he calls out \u201cUnclean!\u201d and not \u201cLeprous!\u201d we learn that the same rule applies to anyone who is unclean. The benefit of such a rule is obvious, and it is likewise obvious that in this respect the same rules apply to men and to women (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:46<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall dwell apart. Others who are also unclean must not dwell with him. Our Sages ask: \u201cWhy is he treated differently from others who are unclean? Since with his harmful talk he separated husband from wife and friend from friend, he too must remain separate.\u201d Outside the camp. Outside all three camps, those of the priests, Levites, and Israelites.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall be unclean as long as the disease is on him. Being unclean, as he truly is. Apart. You will find my discussion of this word in my comment to Lam. 1:1.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall dwell apart. He must not have sex, because sex will debilitate him (Bekhor Shor). The priest must therefore go outside the camp when it is necessary to examine him (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:47<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When an eruptive affection occurs in a cloth. This is a completely unnatural phenomenon that does not occur under ordinary circumstances. The same is true of an \u201ceruptive plague\u201d on a house. When the Jews are at one with the Lord, His spirit is always upon them, keeping their bodies, clothes, and homes in good appearance. When one of them happens to sin, however, an ugliness appears on his flesh, his clothes, or his house, to show that God has departed from him. We find this expressed plainly in 14:34, \u201cWhen you enter the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession, and I inflict an eruptive plague upon a house in the land you possess.\u201d This of course does not occur except in the land that is God\u2019s possession, which He gives to the Israelites. It is not that these are among the rules that apply only in the land of Israel, but that this phenomenon only occurs in the land in whose midst the honored Lord dwells. The Sifra goes so far as to say that even in the land of Israel houses did not convey uncleanness until after the land was conquered and divided among the tribes, when each man knew what was his. The point is that only after this was done were the Israelites in a mental state where they were prepared to know the Lord and have the Shekhinah dwell among them. I believe that the same is true for our passage about eruptive affections in cloth\u2014that they only occur in the land of Israel. There was no need for the text to exclude such affections in other lands, for they never occur there. Moreover, they only occur in white cloth, never in colored cloth. For it may have been the dye that naturally brought out a stain in that particular spot, and it was not \u201cthe finger of God\u201d (Exod. 8:15). This is why, according to R. Simeon, only cloth that is naturally colored can convey uncleanness, not cloth that has been artificially colored. That is why the text keeps repeating over and over again \u201cthe cloth or the skin, in the warp or the woof\u201d\u2014for this affection is miraculous and not natural. But the Sages interpret these repetitions as meaningful. You will find all these interpretations in the Sifra.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When an eruptive affection occurs in a cloth. By this the Torah demonstrates that skin affections come upon people from the realm of matter, not that of form. Note, by the way, that such affections cannot occur in colored cloth, even cloth that is naturally colored. For with regard to innovative law, we cannot use the method of comparison and analogy to add to what the Torah says (Gersonides). The fact that these affections in cloth are not introduced by the phrase \u201cWhen you enter the land of Canaan\u201d (as are eruptive plagues in houses, 14:34) poses a difficulty for Nahmanides\u2019 interpretation. And I have also seen them interpreted metaphorically (for the Bible likes to personify inanimate objects, as in Ps. 98:8, \u201clet the rivers clap their hands, the mountains sing joyously together\u201d). But in fact these affections occur in clothes worn next to the skin of those with leprous affections. That is the reason they do not appear in silk or cotton, and it is also why this section appears before the ritual for cleansing the leper, in 14:1\u201332 (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:48\u201351<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:48<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In the warp or in the woof. The translations have these technical terms correct. The \u201cwarp\u201d is apparently related etymologically to \u201cwith bared buttocks\u201d (Isa. 20:4), where the word in fact implies one\u2019s \u201cfundament\u201d; see \u201cWhen the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous man do?\u201d (Ps. 11:3). Somewhat as in English, the \u201cwoof\u201d really means \u201cthe weave,\u201d that is, what is mixed into the warp. Or in a skin. As it came off the animal. Or in anything made of skin. Such as a wineskin.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:49<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Streaky green or red. The endings of these two color words are duplicated in the Hebrew: yerakrak, adamdam. What this really means is not that the affection is \u201cgreenish\u201d or \u201creddish,\u201d as OJPS has it, but that it is \u201cas green as green could be\u201d or \u201cas red as red could be.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Streaky green or red. Rather, \u201cgreenish or reddish\u201d (OJPS). The reduplication of the last syllable of a Hebrew color word implies a lighter shade of the color. See Song 1:6, where the word for black is changed in this way: \u201cDon\u2019t stare at me because I am swarthy.\u201d But some claim this reduplication is meant to intensify the meaning of the color word.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:51<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A malignant eruption. Rather, \u201ca prickly leprosy\u201d; compare Ezek. 28:24, \u201cThen shall the House of Israel no longer be afflicted with prickling briers and lacerating thorns.\u201d But this word, mam\u2019eret, resembles me\u2019erah, \u201ccurse,\u201d so the verse can be further interpreted to say, \u201cConsider it so cursed that you can derive no benefit from it.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
A malignant eruption. \u201cMalignant\u201d is in fact an excellent translation, combining the two disparate senses of the Hebrew word: that found in Ezek. 28:24, \u201cThen shall the House of Israel no longer be afflicted with prickling briers and lacerating thorns,\u201d as well as that found in Deut. 28:20, \u201cThe LORD will let loose against you calamity, panic, and frustration.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Malignant. Rather, \u201cprickly\u201d; compare Ezek. 28:24, \u201cprickling briers and lacerating thorns.\u201d The point is that it is painful. The root of the word is \u05de\u05d0\u05e8; it has nothing to do with \u05d0\u05e8\u05e8, \u201cto curse.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A malignant eruption. Rashi understands the word translated \u201cmalignant\u201d to mean instead \u201cprickly,\u201d and Onkelos has also translated it this way. But the truth is that the word is related to the root that means \u201cto curse.\u201d Which is to say that the eruption is a divine curse on the cloth or the house, as I have explained in my comment to v. 47. The rabbinic interpretation that one is forbidden to use or profit from such a garment in any way arises from the apparent redundancy of the same expression in v. 52. The same rule applies to houses, where it is stated explicitly: \u201cThe house shall be torn down\u201d (14:45). The Palestinian Talmud explains that in some opinions even burning the affected stones of such a house to turn them into lime does not suffice, for this does not remove their \u201caffected\u201d status: \u201cYou are to consider them malignant and not use them.\u201d R. Abbahu says in the name of R. Johanan, \u201cThe ash of anything that is burned is permissible except for the ash remaining when an idol is burned.\u201d R. Hiyya b. Yose responds, \u201cWhat about the ashes of an affected house? That has nothing to do with idolatry, but it is nonetheless forbidden.\u201d R. Johanan replies, \u201cThe reason that this differs from the regular rule is that the house being torn down shows that it is treated like something connected with idolatry, of which the text says, \u2018you must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, and cut down their sacred posts\u2019 [Exod. 34:13].\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The warp or the woof. The warp is thin and runs the length of the garment; the woof is thicker and runs along its width (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:52\u201355<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 How can v. 55 use, with regard to a piece of cloth, the same terms that refer to a man\u2019s going bald?
\n\u2666 How can the Torah suddenly begin to describe a piece of cloth here as unclean, when no mention of this was made in the discussion of uncleanness in ch. 11?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:52<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In wool or linen. That is \u201cof wool or of linen\u201d (OJPS). But the phrase can also be read to say \u201cwith wool or linen,\u201d which must be explained as follows: He might possibly be required to bring shearings of wool or stalks of flax (from which linen is made) and burn them along with it. That is why our text specifies (as is evident from OJPS) that \u201cit shall be burnt\u201d\u2014it need not have anything else burnt along with it. Why then does the text read \u201cwith wool or linen\u201d? To make clear that wool can only be burnt with wool and linen with linen. The fringe, border, or hem of such a cloth, if it is of a different kind of fabric, is not to be burnt along with it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In wool or linen. The reason that silk and cotton are not mentioned may simply be that the text speaks of what was commonly worn in those days. We find the same technique in Exod. 23:5, \u201cWhen you see the ass of your enemy lying under its burden,\u201d where obviously the same rule applies if the animal is not an ass but a horse or a donkey. Or perhaps the affection referred to in the text simply does not occur with silk or cotton.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The cloth \u2026 shall be burned. Outside of town. For such a cloth must be \u201cisolated\u201d by taking it outside of the city (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:54<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The affected article. More literally, \u201cthe thing wherein the plague is\u201d (OJPS). One might have thought only the affection itself need be washed off, so we are told that the \u201cthing\u201d must be washed. But one need not wash the whole thing, merely that part of it where the affection is located.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:55<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
After the affected article has been washed. The verbal form used here is quite unusual, but the translations are correct in rendering it as a passive. The affection has not changed color. More precisely, it has not changed its \u201cappearance.\u201d It has not spread. Once we have heard that \u201cit is unclean\u201d if it has not changed its appearance and has not spread, it goes without saying that it is unclean if it has spread. But I would not necessarily understand what to do if it has not spread, but its appearance has changed. V. 50, however, says, \u201cthe priest, after examining the affection, shall isolate the affected article for seven days\u201d\u2014he shall isolate it no matter what. This is the opinion of R. Judah, but the Sages say it is automatically unclean. All of this is from the Sifra, and I allude to it here rather than in connection with v. 50 simply in order to settle the understanding of this verse as precisely as I can. It is a fret. That is, a low spot: \u201che must be hiding in one of the pits\u201d (2 Sam. 17:9). It is an affection whose appearance is sunken. Whether on its inner side or on its outer side. Rather, as Onkelos translates, \u201con a worn garment or on a new one.\u201d Moreover, the fact that the two Hebrew words used here are the same ones used in vv. 42\u201343 for baldness provides the opportunity for an analogy based on the shared language. The text seizes upon the \u201cbaldness\u201d metaphor to indicate that, just as with baldness if it spreads over his entire head, he is clean, so too here\u2014if the affection spreads across the entire cloth, it is clean. Linguistically, however, the \u201cfront\u201d is the beginning, that which is new, and the \u201cback\u201d is the end, that which is old. This is how it is explained in the Sifra.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
It is a fret. The Hebrew word is a negative term\u2014it is a \u201cdiminishment,\u201d something that lessens the affected article.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Has been washed. The form is a Hophal infinitive construct. A fret. The Hebrew word is a hapax, appearing nowhere else in the Bible. But we know its meaning from rabbinic Hebrew: a defect in the cloth, whether in front or in back. On its inner side or on its outer side. The same words are used here as in the description of baldness; the translations follow Saadia\u2019s explanation. If this is correct, then the word translated as \u201cbald\u201d in v. 40, where it describes complete baldness, really refers specifically to the baldness of the back of the head. I think Saadia\u2019s explanation is an excellent one.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Whether on its inner side or on its outer side. For sometimes these affections are visible on both sides, but sometimes only on one side or the other (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:56\u201359<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:56<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall tear it out from the cloth or skin. He shall tear out the part that has the affection and burn it.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:57<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is a wild growth. NJPS better captures the plant metaphor used here than does OJPS. But the point is also that the affection is \u201cperennial\u201d: it keeps coming back. The affected article shall be consumed in fire. In this case, the entire article must be burned.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If it occurs again. \u201cIt\u201d being the fret of v. 55, as is shown by the feminine gender of the verb used here. The affected article shall be consumed in fire. Literally, \u201cyou shall burn it,\u201d it being the affection (as is once again shown by the gender of the grammatical suffix). The implication is that only the spot where the affection is must be burned, not the entire article.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The affected article. We see that, even after an affection has been torn out of it, it is still an \u201carticle.\u201d So if the affection does not reoccur, it can be patched and returned to use (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:58<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If, however, the affection disappears from the cloth. After it has been washed according to the priest\u2019s instructions. It shall be washed again. That is, not laundered but ritually immersed in water. Onkelos was careful to translate the first \u201cwash\u201d in this verse as \u201claunder,\u201d but here he translates \u201cimmerse.\u201d Wherever in this passage \u201cwashing\u201d implies ritual immersion, Onkelos translates it that way.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If, however, the affection disappears. More precisely, if it has disappeared. I have already shown you many such cases. It shall be washed again. There is a specific commandment to launder it a second time.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 13:59<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Such is the procedure for eruptive affections of cloth. The Hebrew verse has four successive words all in the construct case. But this is not the record! 1 Chron. 9:13 has five: \u201cmen of substance for the work of the service of the House of \u2026\u201d\u2014all supported at the end by \u201cGod,\u201d for \u201cthe LORD supports all who stumble\u201d (Ps. 145:14).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For pronouncing it clean or unclean. The same priest who pronounces him unclean must pronounce him clean\u2014unless he has died, in which case another priest may do so (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:1\u20134<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the ritual for cleansing a leper require simply \u201cbirds\u201d (v. 4) rather than the turtledoves or pigeons specified elsewhere for bird offerings?
\n\u2666 Since \u201ccedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop\u201d are not sacrificial offerings, what is their purpose?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:1<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses, saying. This formula indicates that the ritual for cleansing a leper is a new subject.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
This shall be the ritual for a leper at the time that he is to be cleansed. Literally, \u201cin the day of his cleansing\u201d (OJPS). This teaches us that he may be cleansed during the day but not at night.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When it has been reported to the priest. Rather, as elsewhere, \u201che shall be brought unto the priest\u201d (OJPS). Once the affection has left him, he may not wish to bring what he is obligated to.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When it has been reported to the priest. The translations separate this phrase from the beginning of the verse, but in fact they belong together. The verse is making a general statement: \u201cThis shall be the ritual for a leper when he wishes to be declared clean and is brought to the priest.\u201d For he can never become clean except by a priest\u2019s declaration. Subsequently, the text supplies the details: \u201cthe priest shall go outside the camp\u201d (v. 3) to the place where the leper is living. He may not come inside the camp to the priest even if he is healed. The Sifra, however, interprets our phrase to mean that \u201che shall be brought unto the priest\u201d without delay. If this is so, then the text is saying that on \u201cthe day of his cleansing,\u201d the day his affection is healed, he must be brought to the priest whether he wants to come or not. The same would apply \u201cWhen one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge\u201d (15:13; and for a woman, see 15:28). As I have explained in my comment to 12:4, \u201cbecoming clean\u201d may sometimes refer to ritual purity but other times to being cleansed of the unwanted condition. And that is the correct understanding here as well.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When it has been reported to the priest. Rather, \u201che shall be brought unto the priest\u201d (OJPS). If he is far from the camp, he is brought to its edge and then the priest goes out to him (Bekhor Shor). He must be brought close enough to the camp that the priest can go to see him in a dignified manner and without much trouble (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Outside the camp. That is, outside all three camps, where the leper was sent once his leprosy was definitively declared.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall go outside the camp. Even though the priest has declared him to be cleansed of his leprosy, the leper may still not enter the camp (or the city) until he has offered the sacrifices for his cleansing and fulfilled all the other rituals that have been commanded. The priest must therefore go outside the camp to where he is. It is not \u201cAaron\u201d (that is, the High Priest) who goes out, but an ordinary priest; this verse therefore clarifies the distinction made between \u201cAaron the priest\u201d and \u201cone of his sons, the priests\u201d in 13:2. The leper has been healed of his scaly affection. The Hebrew is more literally translated as does OJPS: \u201cif the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper.\u201d The Spanish grammarian Ibn Janah observes that this is the reverse of what one would expect to be written; the sense should be that the leper is healed of the affection, not that the affection is healed of the leper (and NJPS has simply gone ahead and translated it this way). But why must we flip-flop the living words of God as a result of our own lack of understanding? From \u201cthe plague has healed\u201d (v. 48) and \u201cthe scall is healed\u201d (13:37) we see that, in Hebrew as in English, it is not only a person who can be healed but also a sore or an injury.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Two live clean birds. The birds must be \u201clive\u201d and not dying; \u201cclean\u201d and not from one of the \u201cunclean\u201d birds that may not be eaten. The reason for this is that leprous affections come upon a person as punishment for injurious speech, that is, for idle chatter about other people. It is therefore necessary that he bring birds, which are always chittering and chirping, so that he may be cleansed. Cedar wood. Symbolizing the excessive pride that is another cause of leprous
\naffections. Crimson stuff, and hyssop. How can he be restored to health? He must lower himself from his haughty pride to the level of the hyssop and the worm\u2014for the \u201ccrimson stuff\u201d of the translation is called in the Hebrew idiom a \u201cworm\u201d of wool dyed crimson.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Two live clean birds. \u201cBird\u201d is the general term; he may bring any bird he finds. But they must be \u201cliving\u201d and not dying, \u201cclean\u201d and not from those that are unclean for eating. Cedar wood \u2026 and hyssop. Respectively, the largest and smallest of plants, as we know from Solomon\u2019s wisdom when he \u201cdiscoursed about trees, from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall\u201d (1 Kings 5:13). There is no need to research which variety of hyssop is to be used; we know via tradition what it is. Notice, by the way, that the use of hyssop associates the cleansing of the leper with that of the eruptive plague in a house and with purification from the uncleanness of a corpse. Moreover, there is a likeness to the night of the exodus from Egypt. To be brought for him who is to be cleansed. At the priest\u2019s expense; but some say the leper must provide them.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Two live clean birds. Rashi\u2019s explanation of what makes these birds \u201cclean\u201d depends on the assumption that the Hebrew word tzipor, like \u201cbird\u201d in English, refers not to a particular species that may be eaten, but is a general word for all birds. What then is this chittering they are supposed to do? For there are many birds that do not chitter and chirp. Moreover, his explanation of \u201clive\u201d birds as those that are \u201cnot dying\u201d is in fact disputed in the rabbinic sources. The Sifra, at least, understands \u201clive\u201d to mean simply that they have not been slaughtered, and \u201cclean\u201d to mean that they are of the species that are permissible to eat. Scholars of the straightforward sense of the biblical text can cite many verses to show that tzipor refers to birds in general: \u201cthe birds of the heavens, the fish of the sea\u201d (Ps. 8:9); \u201call birds of every kind\u201d (Gen. 7:14); \u201csay to every winged bird and to all the wild beasts\u201d (Ezek. 39:17). In my opinion, however, a careful analysis of the sources shows that tzipor refers specifically to birds that wake early in the morning to sing and chirp. The word tzaphra in Aramaic means \u201cmorning,\u201d and note \u201cLet anybody who is timid and fearful turn back early in the morning from Mount Gilead\u201d (Judg. 7:3), using a verb from the same root. NJPS itself translates tzipor as a particular species in Ps. 84:4, \u201cEven the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself in which to set her young.\u201d In any case, we find that in Hebrew this word does indeed refer specifically to chittering birds and does not apply generally to birds of every sort. It would appear from the rabbinic discussion that, whatever the meaning of the biblical word, they understood that the bird to be used here was the swallow (which is the source of the midrash about \u201cchittering\u201d). The Hebrew name of the swallow, dror, also means \u201cfreedom,\u201d and since v. 53 tells us that \u201che shall set the live bird free outside the city in the open country,\u201d we understand that any such free-flying bird may be used (though the two birds should be of the same kind). What remains after analysis of the rabbinic sources is that we have a great controversy about the precise meaning of tzipor here. But it is nonetheless correct to say that any bird which is not free flying is not permissible for use in this ceremony even retroactively, and that all birds which are free flying are chittering ones.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Two live clean birds. The word used for \u201cbird\u201d here, tzipor, always refers to birds that are permissible to eat; the more general Hebrew term for \u201cbird\u201d is oph (Hizkuni). Cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop. These symbolize how his \u201ccrimson\u201d sin has brought him from the heights of the cedar to the lowliness of the hyssop (Bekhor Shor). The cedar stick must be at least a cubit long and have enough foliage at the top to be recognizable as cedar; there must also be no less than a handsbreadth of hyssop (Gersonides). Each of these items symbolizes one of the four aspects of leprosy: the birds, that his flesh is no longer dead but once again alive; the cedar, which (as experience confirms) does not decay, that his infection is gone; the crimson, that his blood is once again healthy; and the hyssop, that his foul smell is gone (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:5\u20137<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What is the point of slaughtering one of the birds (v. 5) if it is not meant to be a sacrifice?
\n\u2666 What is the point of setting the live bird \u201cfree in the open country\u201d (v. 7)?
\n\u2666 Since v. 7 tells us that the priest cleanses the leper, why does v. 9, six days later, say \u201cthen he shall be clean\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Over fresh water. But he first puts the fresh water in a container\u2014just enough that the bird\u2019s blood will remain recognizable in the water. And how much water is he to use? A quarter of a log.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered. Whether by another priest or by an ordinary Jew. Some say it is to be slaughtered by the leper, but this is improbable. Over fresh water. Water taken from a flowing source. In an earthen vessel. Rather, \u201cover\u201d an earthen vessel. The preposition el (which ordinarily means \u201cinto\u201d) is used here instead of al (\u201cover\u201d), as sometimes happens; see, e.g., 1 Sam. 1:27.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered. Not \u201cone of the birds\u201d but \u201cthe one bird\u201d\u2014the better of the two (Hizkuni). It is clear that the slaughtering of the bird, like all of the ritual actions to follow, must be performed by a priest (Gersonides). Over fresh water. Literally, \u201cover living water.\u201d For the leper, symbolized by the dead bird, is now about to mix again with the living. But practically the blood of this bird must be mixed with water because there would not be enough blood in which to dip the cedar, crimson, and hyssop, and the live bird (Hizkuni). The \u201cfresh\u201d water must not have been previously used for any other purpose (Gersonides). An earthen vessel. The earthen vessel, which cannot be cleansed of impurity but must be broken, symbolizes that if the leper reverts to his bad ways, there is no remedy for him (Bekhor Shor). Like the water, the vessel too must be a new one that has never been used (Gersonides). The human body too is an earthen vessel (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall take the live bird. More literally, \u201cas for the living bird, he shall take it\u201d (OJPS). The unusual syntax used here indicates that the bird is not bound together with the cedar, crimson, and hyssop, but is kept separate from them. Along with the cedar wood, the crimson stuff, and the hyssop. The cedar and hyssop are tied together by the crimson cord. The bird is \u201ctaken\u201d separately from these three, which are \u201ctaken\u201d together. And dip them together with the live bird. Since the bird is not bound together with them, one might have thought it was not to be dipped in the blood of the other bird; it is therefore linguistically reunited with them to show that it is to be dipped.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Dip them. The cedar wood, the crimson stuff, and the hyssop. Over the fresh water. With which the blood of the slaughtered bird is now mixed.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Dip them together with the live bird in the blood. When the bird stained with blood is released, the other birds will find it changed and kill it. This prevents it from being used by another leper, for these items are supposed to \u201cmake expiation for him\u201d (v. 20), not for anyone else. Our Sages have said: If the bird comes back, his leprosy will, too (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:7<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed. OJPS translates more literally, but NJPS more clearly\u2014it is not that he is to be cleansed seven times, but that the priest must sprinkle it seven times.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall then sprinkle it. The blood that is mixed into the water\u2014after the bird and the other three things have been dipped in it. It is sprinkled using the bunch of cedar, crimson, and hyssop, or perhaps just the hyssop alone as in Num. 19:18. In the open country. The reference is to a place where there is no human settlement, so that the leprosy cannot spread to others by contagion.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall set the live bird free in the open country. Ibn Ezra explains this as a measure to avoid contagion. But note his remarks (in his comment to v. 4) about the use of hyssop as protection against destructive forces. The Sifra expounds on this phrase \u201cin the open country\u201d to say, \u201cHe must not stand in Joppa and release the bird toward the sea, nor in Gibbethon and release it toward the desert.\u201d If the Sifra is correct, then there is something more serious about this act of setting the live bird free, comparable to the goat that is sent off to the wilderness for Azazel. The goat is sent off to the desert, but the live bird here is sent off to the demons that fly about the open country. I shall explain more about this in my comment to 16:8, with God\u2019s help.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him. On the back of the leper\u2019s hand (Hizkuni). The priest must dip them in the blood before each sprinkling, a total of seven times. The reason he is sprinkled on the back of the hand is to symbolize that he is letting go of his decay\u2014just as the palm of the hand signifies grasping and possession. Similarly, when the house with an eruptive plague is sprinkled, this is done outdoors, on the lintel (Gersonides). Cleanse him. The leper requires both cleansing, to indicate that he is healthy enough to return to human society, and expiation, to permit him to come into contact again with the sacred (Abarbanel). This cleansing relieves him of the obligation to rend his clothes and let his hair grow (Sforno). He shall set the live bird free. As the dead bird symbolizes the deadness of leprosy, setting the live bird free symbolizes the leper\u2019s return to freedom of movement (Bekhor Shor). In the open country. Rather, \u201cthe open field\u201d (OJPS); he must not release it to the desert or the sea, but to the field, a place of life and growth (Bekhor Shor). He must release it not \u201cin\u201d the open field, but \u201cinto\u201d it, from within the city (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:8\u20139<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since v. 8 has already told us that the leper \u201cshall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe in water,\u201d and that \u201cthen he shall be clean,\u201d why does v. 9 apparently repeat all these instructions?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He must remain outside his tent. This teaches that he must refrain from sexual intercourse.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe in water; then he shall be clean. This is a general statement; the details are given in v. 9. (As always, he shall not \u201cbe clean\u201d until evening.) Only after giving this general description does the verse point out that this does not take place until after a wait of seven days. Even Miriam was \u201cshut out of camp for seven days\u201d (Num. 12:14) after being stricken with leprosy.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes. To cleanse them from his original uncleanness\u2014even though they will return to a (lesser) state of uncleanness once he puts them on again (Gersonides). Shave off all his hair. He does this immediately, to cleanse himself well of uncleanness (Bekhor Shor). Rather, the priest must shave off the man\u2019s hair. For every ritual action that purifies the man\u2019s body must be done by a priest (Gersonides). Bathe in water. Demonstrating that no drugs or other remedy were necessary to heal him. As Elisha told Naaman in 2 Kings 5:10, \u201cGo and bathe seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean\u201d (Abarbanel). He is now cleansed of the obligation to remain outside the camp (Sforno). He must remain outside his tent seven days. This is to keep him away from his wife. For sex, by weakening his basic heat, might put him in danger of a relapse. The Torah speaks of a male here because a woman\u2019s seed is not heated, so sex does not endanger her in this way; if the one to be cleansed is a woman, she is permitted to engage in sex (Gersonides). While waiting to offer sacrifice, he spends seven days apart from all sin and impurity, like one who is preparing himself to enter the king\u2019s banqueting hall (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair\u2014of head, beard, and eyebrows. When he has shaved off all his hair. The use of the general term, followed by specifics, and then again the general term, means that the general term is to be understood in the context of the details that are specifically given. The second occurrence of \u201call his hair,\u201d then, is interpreted to include every place where a cluster of hair grows and is evident.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
On the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair. Now the text returns to give the specific details of the cleansing process. Head, beard, and eyebrows. This defines what \u201call his hair\u201d means. The word translated \u201ceyebrow\u201d is derived from a root related to height: \u201cyou built yourself an eminence\u201d (Ezek. 16:24). When he has shaved off all his hair. The Hebrew text is really a repetition of the beginning of the verse: \u201ceven all his hair he shall shave off\u201d (OJPS). But the repetition is understood to mean that he must also shave off the hair on his legs. Some would add the hair on his arms, his thighs, and his chest.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When he has shaved off all his hair. Rashi has followed the method of R. Ishmael here. The Sifra, however, says that he must shave all his hair. This is in fact the authoritative rule: that he must shave his whole body as smooth as a gourd\u2014either because the halakhah here overrides R. Ishmael\u2019s interpretive method, or because it specifically follows the method of his counterpart, R. Akiva, who includes all the hair on the body except for that growing in the nose. M. Neg. 14:2 says specifically, \u201cHe would pass a razor over his entire body.\u201d The subject is explained further on B. Sotah 16.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
On the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair. Which has grown since he shaved on the first day (Bekhor Shor). Then he shall be clean. And he need no longer \u201cremain outside his tent\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:10\u201314<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is some of the blood of the guilt offering put on the leper\u2019s right ear, right thumb, and right big toe (v. 14)?
\n\u2666 Why must this blood come from the guilt offering rather than the sin offering or the burnt offering?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
One ewe lamb. This is used for the sin offering of v. 19. Three-tenths of a measure of choice flour. One for each of the three sacrifices\u2014for the sin offering and the guilt offering of a leper require accompanying meal offerings just as the burnt offering does. One log of oil. With which to perform the seven sprinklings of v. 16 and the applications to ear, thumb, and toe of v. 17.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Two male lambs \u2026 one ewe lamb. Since the purpose of the scaly affection is to discipline him for what he has done by harmful speech, he must bring one lamb as a burnt offering to atone for what \u201carose\u201d in his thought, one as a guilt offering, and one ewe as appropriate for a sin offering. Three-tenths of a measure of choice flour. One for each of the lambs. One log of oil. A log is obviously a liquid measure, but the exact meaning of the word is unknown; it is not related to any other Hebrew word.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb. The text does not say precisely what he is to do with them. V. 12 explains that one of the male lambs is to be a guilt offering, but v. 19 simply goes on to mention a sin offering and a burnt offering. This is because 4:28 has already told us that a sin offering must be female, and 1:3 that a burnt offering must be male. So we understand without having to be told that the other male lamb is the burnt offering and the ewe is the sin offering.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Before the LORD. This is done at the Gate of Nicanor and not in the temple courtyard itself, for \u201cexpiation\u201d (v. 19) has not yet been made for him.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
These shall be presented before the LORD. More literally (compare OJPS), he \u201cshall stand them\u201d\u2014the lambs\u2014\u201cbefore the Lord.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
These. The two male lambs and the ewe. Both the guilt offering and the sin offering go to the priest (except for those parts that are burnt on the altar).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
These shall be presented before the LORD. NJPS translates correctly. One certainly cannot make the meal and oil \u201cstand before the Lord\u201d (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And offer it \u2026 as a guilt offering. The priest performs this offering inside the courtyard. He shall elevate them. The offering must be \u201cwaved\u201d (OJPS; see my comment to 7:34) while it is still alive. \u201cThem\u201d refers to the log of oil and to the lamb that is to be the guilt offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A guilt offering. As the most significant of the three offerings, the guilt offering is brought first.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
As a guilt offering. For the Sages have told us that he is guilty of the sins of harmful speech and of pride, and these are trespasses against God: \u201cHe who slanders his friend in secret I will destroy; I cannot endure the haughty and proud man\u201d (Ps. 101:5). As 2 Chron. 26:19 tells us, when King Uzziah grew so arrogant that he trespassed against God, \u201cleprosy broke out on his forehead\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
At the spot in the sacred area where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. Next to the north side of the altar. But have we not already been told that \u201cthe guilt offering shall be slaughtered at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered\u201d (7:2)? This animal, however, must be \u201cpresented before the LORD\u201d (v. 11), so one might think it would be slaughtered at the spot where it is presented. We therefore must be specifically told that it is to be slaughtered to the north of the altar. For the guilt offering, like the sin offering, goes to the priest. With regard to all the rituals performed by the priest, this guilt offering is likened to the sin offering. It therefore goes to him just as any sin offering would. Here again, we might think that putting the blood on the leper\u2019s ear, thumb, and toe (v. 14) would differentiate this guilt offering from others, and that its blood and sacrificial parts need not be put on the altar. We are therefore reminded that it is like an ordinary sin offering in this respect. But its blood is not applied to the upper part of the altar like that of a sin offering, for (as the Sifra explains) it is most holy, just as all guilt offerings are described in 7:1. So, like them, its blood is applied to the lower part of the altar.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The ridge of the right ear. That is, the ridge in the middle of the ear. I am not familiar with the Hebrew word translated \u201cridge\u201d in any other context, but the lexicographers translate it as \u201ccartilage.\u201d The big toe. This is the correct translation; note that Hebrew idiom calls this \u201cthe thumb\u201d of the foot.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The ridge. We understand what this must be from its location on the ear. The right ear \u2026 the thumb \u2026 the big toe. These represent the body of the one who is being cleansed, just as they do the bodies of the priests when they are consecrated, for sin is the leprosy of the soul. The thumb and big toe are the keystones of the hand and the foot, representing the essence of action. The ear is a reminder to hear that which he was commanded. The right side is used because that is the dominant side.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall take \u2026 and the priest shall put. One priest takes the blood of the guilt offering in a vessel and dashes its blood against the altar; a second priest takes the blood in his hand and applies it to the one who is being cleansed (Hizkuni). Though the verse does not say so, the dashing of the blood against the altar must come first. As with every sacrifice, it is the giving of the divine portion to God that permits the rest for human use (Gersonides). On the ridge of the right ear \u2026 on the thumb \u2026 and on the big toe. So that none of the blood leaves the courtyard (which would invalidate the procedure), the one to be cleansed must first stick his head into the courtyard and have the blood put on his ear; then he sticks in his hand, and has the blood put on his thumb; then he sticks in his foot and has the blood put on his toe (Gersonides). Rather than letting blood from these three parts of the body, as would ordinarily be done for healing, he demonstrates that his healing came through repentance by doing the opposite of the medical procedure (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:15\u201319<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the priest use oil to sprinkle \u201cseven times before the LORD\u201d (v. 16) rather than blood, as one would expect?
\n\u2666 Why is the oil (v. 17) put on the leper\u2019s ear, thumb, and toe?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:15<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall then take some of the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. Literally, \u201cinto the palm of the priest\u2019s left hand.\u201d But (as v. 16 proves) it is indeed his own hand and not that of another priest. It is a feature of Biblical Hebrew style that a noun is sometimes repeated where one might expect a pronoun.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall then take some of the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. Literally, \u201cinto the palm of the priest\u2019s left hand.\u201d It is preferable (but, as v. 16 shows, not essential) that this oil be poured into the hand of another priest (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Before the LORD. Opposite the Holy of Holies.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Before the LORD. Toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:17<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Over the blood of the guilt offering. On the ear, the thumb, and the big toe.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:18<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed. Thus the priest shall make expiation for him before the LORD. This expiation comes via the manipulation of the blood of the guilt offering and the oil. (See similarly vv. 25\u201329.) In the Sifra, however, R. Johanan b. Nuri is cited as saying that expiation is achieved even if the priest fails to put \u201cthe rest\u201d of the oil on the man\u2019s head. According to him, \u201cThus the priest shall make expiation\u201d must refer to the guilt offering. But the text goes on to say, \u201cThe priest shall then offer the sin offering and make expiation\u201d (v. 19), and further, \u201cthe priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meal offering on the altar, and the priest shall make expiation for him\u201d (v. 20). So we do not understand these multiple expiations. Perhaps the guilt offering makes expiation for the offense he committed against God before he was struck with leprosy. The sin offering would make expiation for whatever sin he may have committed during the period when he had leprosy. For in his pain he may have \u201ccast reproach on God\u201d (Job 1:22). That would explain why the sin offering makes expiation for him \u201cfrom his uncleanness\u201d (as v. 19 literally says). The burnt offering and the meal offering would then be the ransom for his life, permitting him to achieve ritual purity and return to his \u201ctent.\u201d That would explain why v. 20 says, \u201cThe priest shall make expiation for him\u201d followed by \u201cThen he shall be clean.\u201d The Sifra explains that the express statement in v. 19 that \u201cthe priest shall \u2026 make expiation\u201d means that expiation is dependent on the sin offering and fully achieved by it even if the burnt offering is for some reason not performed. So it may be that v. 20 is a summary statement describing the whole process, birds and all. The section about eruptive plagues in a house ends with the release of the live bird and then just such a summary statement: \u201cThus he shall make expiation for the house, and it shall be clean\u201d (v. 53).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:19<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall then offer the sin offering. The ewe, as is the rule for every sin offering.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:20\u201329<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 If \u201chis means are insufficient\u201d (v. 21), why are the sin offering and the burnt offering replaceable by birds, but the guilt offering is not?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And the meal offering. As the meal offering that accompanies an animal sacrifice, it is completely burned rather than being given (after a scoopful is removed for burning) to the priests.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall offer the burnt offering. A male lamb. The meal offering. Its associated tenth of a measure of choice flour. But some think the entire three-tenths of a measure of flour accompanies the burnt offering. Then he shall be clean. At this point, he becomes a clean person like any other.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Then he shall be clean. To the extent that he can enter the sanctuary (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
One-tenth of a measure of choice flour. Rather than the three-tenths of v. 10, for in this case only one lamb is being offered, and bird sacrifices are not accompanied by a meal offering. A log of oil. This is the oil that is to be put on the leper\u2019s ear, thumb, and toe (v. 28). It goes without saying that a quarter of a hin of oil must be mixed into the meal offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If, however, he is poor. The Hebrew word can mean not only one who does not have sufficient money (as it does here), but also one who is doing \u201cpoorly\u201d from a physical perspective: \u201cPresently there followed them seven other cows, scrawny, ill-formed, and emaciated\u201d (Gen. 41:19); \u201cHappy is he who is thoughtful of the wretched\u201d (Ps. 41:2); \u201cWhy are you so dejected, O prince, morning after morning? Tell me!\u201d (2 Sam. 13:4).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If, however, he is poor. A leper, like a woman who gives birth, is not bringing an offering for a specific sin; they therefore may bring a sliding-scale offering (Bekhor Shor). Note that it is the sin offering and the burnt offering that differ; the guilt offering remains the same (Gersonides). He must still use a lamb as the guilt offering so that there is enough blood to perform the necessary procedures (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On the eighth day of his cleansing. The period of \u201ccleansing\u201d begins on the day when the priest takes the birds, cedar, scarlet, and hyssop (v. 4). So this occurs exactly a week later, \u201con the eighth day.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:27<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Seven times before the LORD. Seven times, symbolizing plenty and constancy (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:28<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering. Even if the blood has already been wiped off. Comparison of this verse with v. 17 teaches us that it is not the presence of the blood that determines where the oil should be put, but the specific places that are mentioned. (But if the blood has not previously been applied, putting on the oil accomplishes nothing.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:30\u201336<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What does \u201cleprosy\u201d (v. 34, OJPS) have to do with houses?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:33<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying. Here begins the section on eruptive plagues in houses.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron. \u201cWhen you enter the land of Canaan\u201d and \u201cthe land you possess\u201d (v. 34) show that this passage is actually addressed not to Moses and Aaron but to all Israel, and should rightly have continued, \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people, and say to them.\u201d The text, however, is terse because this was obvious. Or perhaps the Lord is speaking to them here as stand-ins for all Israel. In this case, the implication is that the intent was simply to teach them all the rules of leprosy together in one place so that they might teach them to the priests, and not to have Moses tell this to all the Israelites. Only to those who would indeed enter the land would he eventually offer this warning: \u201cIn cases of an eruptive plague, be most careful to do exactly as the levitical priests instruct you. Take care to do as I have commanded them\u201d (Deut. 24:8). We see that before saying this he had given them the commands recorded here in vv. 34\u201353.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:34<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When \u2026 I inflict an eruptive plague. This was actually a means of conveying good news. For the Amorites hid golden treasure inside the walls of their houses during the 40 years the Israelites spent in the wilderness. The eruptive plague would cause the owner of the house to tear it down, at which point he would find the treasure.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When you enter the land of Canaan. This is operative only in the land of Israel, on account of the high stature of that land due to the sanctuary being among them, for God\u2019s Presence dwells in the sanctuary. I inflict. More simply, \u201cI put\u201d (OJPS). Such a plague is dependent on God\u2019s putting it there.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I inflict an eruptive plague. The implication of this phrase is that such a plague is caused by the hand of God. It is not a natural phenomenon at all, as I explained in my comment to 13:47.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When you enter the land of Canaan. This is said about the plague on houses, and not about the affections on a person or on cloth, because they had no houses until they conquered Canaan and settled there (Hizkuni). And I inflict an eruptive plague upon a house. God inflicts such a plague because we are commanded, \u201cYou must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped their gods\u201d (Deut. 12:2), and we do not know at which sites they did this (Hizkuni). Besides the possibility of hidden treasure, remember that these are houses which they did not build. God therefore would sometimes inflict a plague to let them know that a particular house was shaky and ready to fall (Gersonides). One should not think this is a natural phenomenon; a \u201cplague,\u201d caused by infection of the blood, cannot naturally occur in a house, which has no blood. This is something that God does to urge people to repent of their sins. As Hab. 2:11 puts it, \u201cFor a stone shall cry out from the wall, and a rafter shall answer it from the woodwork\u201d (Abarbanel). In the land you possess. This phenomenon does not, therefore, occur in Jerusalem, which was not divided among the tribes and cannot be anyone\u2019s private \u201cpossession\u201d (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:35<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Something like a plague has appeared upon my house. Even if he is smart enough to know that it is definitely a plague, he may not pronounce it so by saying, \u201cA plague has appeared upon my house.\u201d He must call it \u201csomething like a plague.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The owner of the house shall come. It is a commandment that he must come to the priest. He is not \u201cbrought\u201d as is the leper.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:36<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Before the priest enters. Until the priest gets involved, the category of uncleanness does not apply. So that nothing in the house may become unclean. More literally, so that \u201call that is in the house be not made unclean\u201d (OJPS). Once the priest closes up the house, anything the owner has not removed from it becomes unclean. But what is the Torah\u2019s concern here? Objects that can be immersed will become clean when he immerses them, and he can consume unclean food and drink during the days when he himself is unclean. So the Torah\u2019s only concern here must be earthen containers, for these are not made clean by immersion.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall order the house cleared. More literally, he shall order that \u201cthey empty the house\u201d (OJPS)\u2014the owner of the house and all his family. \u201cThey\u201d must clear the house, and not \u201che\u201d alone, because it has to be done rapidly. Before the priest enters. They must manage to clear it before he enters, because once he does so he may close up the house due to the possibility that it is infected.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall order the house cleared before the priest enters. This gives the person time to repent and to pray, and gives the priest time to pray as well (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:37\u201342<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:37<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Streaks. As OJPS translates, \u201chollow streaks.\u201d But they only appear \u201chollow,\u201d that is, sunken.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Greenish or reddish streaks. Rather, \u201c\u2014ish, greenish, or reddish.\u201d The three parallel Hebrew words describe marks of three different colors, as is made clear by the latter two well-known words. (See Zech. 6:3 for a similar pair of words, listed next to each other, which the context shows must be color words.)<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Streaks. The Hebrew word is a hapax legomenon, not found anywhere else in the Bible. We do not know whether it is a quadriliteral root, \u05e9\u05e7\u05e2\u05e8, with the 4th root letter repeated, or quinqueliteral, \u05e9\u05e7\u05e2\u05e8\u05e8, with five separate root letters. As to meaning, it must be interpreted from context. Some (like NJPS) take it as \u201cstreaks\u201d; others take it to be a compound word formed from \u05e9\u05e7\u05e2, \u201csink\u201d (see, e.g., Num. 11:2), and \u05e8\u05e8, \u201crunning\u201d (see 15:3). OJPS apparently follows this view, but it is implausible. That appear. More literally, \u201cthe appearance thereof\u201d (OJPS)\u2014the appearance of each of the streaks is \u201clower than the wall\u201d (OJPS).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:38<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall \u2026 close up the house for seven days. This can occur twice for an affection in a cloth, but three times for one in a house; the cloth costs little, so the Torah takes less care to prevent one from suffering its loss (Abarbanel). This period too provides time for repentance. The midrash takes the three possible weeks of this procedure to symbolize the destruction of the First Temple, its restoration in the Second, the destruction of the Second Temple, and its ultimate rectification in the Third Temple, may it be built speedily in our days, Amen! (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:40<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out. The same verb is used in Deut. 25:9, \u201cpull the sandal off his foot.\u201d The verb is used here in the sense of \u201cremove.\u201d Into an unclean place. A place where clean things are not used. This teaches us that these stones make the area unclean as long as they are there.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out. The verb essentially refers to forcible removal; compare \u201cRescue me, O LORD, from evil men\u201d (Ps. 140:2). Into an unclean place. So that they will be recognizable as unclean and no one will take them for another use.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out. Literally, he shall order \u201cthat they take out the stones\u201d (see OJPS). Woe to the wicked man, and woe to his neighbor! (Hizkuni). The plural indicates that the plague must occur in more than a single stone (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:41<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The house shall be scraped. This verb is not found anywhere else in the Bible, but it is common in rabbinic Hebrew. All around. That is, all around the plague. This at least is how it is explained in the Sifra, that he must scrape off the plaster around the place where the stones with the plague were removed. The coating that is scraped off. This \u201cscraped\u201d is a different (though similar sounding) verb than the one used earlier in the verse. It is etymologically connected to the noun \u201cend,\u201d for they scrape the \u201cends,\u201d the edges, all around the former plague area.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The house shall be scraped. The Hebrew verb implies shaping with a sharp object: \u201cHe marks out a shape with a stylus\u201d (Isa. 44:13). The coating that is scraped off. The first \u201cscrape\u201d in this verse comes from the root \u05e7\u05e6\u05e2, whereas this one comes from the root \u05e7\u05e6\u05d4. But it must be said that the translations are correct in taking the two verbs as equivalent. For v. 43, referring to the first phrase of our verse, uses the same verb that is found here in the second phrase.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The house shall be scraped. The root of this verb \u201cscrape\u201d is found elsewhere in \u201cHe marks out a shape with a stylus\u201d (Isa. 44:13) and \u201cAll your robes are trimmed with myrrh and aloes\u201d (Ps. 45:9). It means \u201cpeeling,\u201d as when Jacob \u201cgot fresh shoots of poplar, and of almond and plane, and peeled white stripes in them\u201d (Gen. 30:37). Some understand our verb to mean that the corner of the house must be peeled, based on the related word in Exod. 26:24, \u201cthey shall form the two corners,\u201d but this is incorrect. Once the plague has spread, the entire house must be scraped. The coating that is scraped off. \u201cScrape\u201d here is a different verb, from a root referring to one \u201cend\u201d of something. It is only the top \u201cend,\u201d the current surface of the wall, that must be removed.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:42<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They shall take other stones and replace those stones with them. Again, the verbs are plural to indicate that several people must be involved so that it can be done quickly. And take other coating. But this verb is in the singular. The owner of the house, who wishes to live there, does this. Plaster the house. The Hebrew verb is the antonym of the verb used for the first instance of \u201cscrape\u201d in v. 41; it is related to \u201cdaubing with plaster the flimsy wall\u201d (Ezek. 13:10).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They shall take other stones. Two stones may not be replaced by a single stone. But the stones that were removed do not have to be replaced by an exactly equal number of stones (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:43\u201345<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If the plague again breaks out in the house. Since these are \u201cother stones\u201d and \u201cother coating\u201d (v. 42) than the original ones, it is not \u201cthe\u201d same \u201cplague\u201d that is breaking out. This is therefore not the same as when an eruption spreads on the skin. In these cases, it is quite common for the pus of the original affection to retreat inside the body and later to resurface and appear on the skin again. But (to repeat) as I explained in my comment to 13:47, this case is different. It is inflicted by God, and there is an evil spirit from the Lord in that place. As the Sifra points out, our verse literally says, \u201cIf the plague returns and sprouts in the house,\u201d just as when \u201cMoses entered the Tent of the Pact, and there the staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had sprouted\u201d (Num. 17:23). It is not that it arises and spreads, but that it \u201creturns\u201d to bloom over and over again, like a man who goes off and then returns to his original place to settle in a different chair that has been prepared for him there. As I have explained, this blossoming is not a natural phenomenon. The same is true of the \u201cwild growth\u201d in a cloth (v. 57). Our verse does not say that the plague must \u201cagain break out\u201d in the same stones. Even if it appears in a totally different part of the house, even if it has a completely different appearance from the original plague, it is considered to have \u201cagain broken out.\u201d That is why our verse says \u201cin the house.\u201d If a plague breaks out anywhere \u201cin the house,\u201d the rule given here applies. The point is that the evil spirit is not going to leave that house, but will always remain somewhere in it to frighten its owner. The Sifra explains the verse exactly this way.
\nThe rabbinic interpretation does in fact correctly explain this topic: \u201cIf the plague again breaks out in the house, after the stones have been pulled out and after the house has been scraped and replastered,\u201d or if \u201cthe priest comes\u201d a second time \u201cto examine,\u201d in either case, \u201cif the plague has spread in the house, it is a malignant eruption in the house; it is unclean. The house shall be torn down.\u201d That is, whether the plague has spread after the first week or after the second, the same rules apply. There was no need to repeat the exact same passage twice, and v. 44 does follow naturally after v. 43. V. 48, then, \u201cIf, however, the priest comes and sees that the plague has not spread,\u201d refers to the second visit of the priest. The \u201chealing\u201d referred to in that verse simply means that the plague has not returned. From which we learn that if the plague keeps its previous appearance after the first week and after the second, the same process of removing, scraping, and replastering is repeated, and they wait one more week. If it returns again at this point, the house is to be torn down. This correctly explains the verses as they are rabbinically interpreted. It is impossible to permit someone to slice them up with a knife and move them backward and forward so that they say something they do not in fact mean. It may also be (with regard to the correct understanding of this matter) that \u201cspread\u201d of v. 48 is being used just like \u201cbreak out, sprout, blossom.\u201d Both words are referring to growth, and Onkelos translates them both by the same verb, one that can refer equally to growth, spread, or return. If a plague grows in the house after the stones have been replaced, it is definitely unclean and must be torn down (v. 45); but if on examination the priest sees that no plague has grown, then the removal and replastering has healed it (v. 48). What our text does not explicitly say is what is to be done if the plague remains unchanged after the first week and then spreads after the second week. It is possible to infer what must be done once we understand that \u201cthe priest shall return\u201d (v. 39) and \u201cthe priest shall come\u201d (v. 44) are equivalent events, and the same procedure follows his \u201ccoming\u201d after the second week as followed his \u201creturning\u201d after the first week. When \u201cthe priest comes\u201d in v. 48, we therefore learn that the procedure is followed for a third week. So the passage means just what it says, as the rabbinic interpretation (based on a comparison of words authorized by transmission to Moses at Sinai) has taught us. When the Sifra explains this passage without recourse to the word comparison method, that is because they wanted to make the passage mean what they already knew by tradition that it must mean. The bottom line here is that they are telling us to leave the verses as they are and follow the rabbinic interpretation of them\u2014not to uproot the text from its place and stick it somewhere else. That is how it seems to me this matter should be resolved in order to uphold the words of the Sages, which are a fine, quite acceptable interpretation.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:43<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the plague again breaks out in the house. One might think that if the plague \u201creturns and breaks out\u201d (as the Hebrew literally says) on the very same day that the house should be declared unclean immediately. But just as v. 39 tells us that the priest shall \u201creturn\u201d on the seventh day, here too the \u201creturn\u201d of the plague only makes the house unclean at the end of a week. After the stones have been pulled out. The following phrase, scraped and replastered, is indeed passive in the Hebrew\u2014but our phrase is active: \u201cAfter he has pulled them out.\u201d The reference is impersonal, referring to whichever person actually did the action.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
After the house has been scraped. The clauses of the verse are reversed from their logical order. It is to be understood as follows: after the stones have been pulled out and after the house has been scraped and replastered, if the plague again breaks out in the house, the priest shall come to examine it.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:44<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the plague has spread in the house, it is a malignant eruption. One might think it is unclean only if it has spread. But the similar expression in 13:51 with regard to cloth tells us that, as with cloth, the return of the plague marks it as unclean even if it does not spread any farther than it previously had. Why then does our text say \u201cif the plague has spread\u201d? In fact, this verse is logically out of place. V. 45 should follow immediately upon v. 43. V. 44 actually describes the situation where the appearance of the plague is unchanged when the priest examines it on the seventh day but has spread after a second week of waiting\u2014a situation that the text has said nothing about so far. For v. 39 deals only with the case where the plague has spread after a single week. If it has not spread until after a second week, what is to be done? One might think from the fact that v. 45 immediately follows our verse that the house should be torn down. But, again, our verse is logically out of sequence. Rather, in this inspection, just as in the inspection of v. 39, the stones are removed, the wall is scraped and plastered, and they must wait for a third week. If the plague has returned at that point, the house is torn down. If it has not, then the house is clean. But what if the house remains unchanged after the second week? Well, v. 48 again says \u201cthe priest comes.\u201d Since the return of the priest after the first week is described in v. 39 and his return after the second week is described in our verse, the doubling of the verb \u201ccome\u201d in the Hebrew of v. 48 must indicate that he \u201csees that the plague has not spread\u201d (v. 48) either time. Since \u201cthe priest shall pronounce the house clean\u201d only if \u201cthe plague has healed\u201d (still v. 48), we learn that if the plague remains unchanged at the priest\u2019s second visit it is not declared \u201cclean,\u201d but the whole procedure of removing the stones, scraping, and replastering is repeated for a third week, just as it would be if the plague had spread. All of this is according to the explanation given in the Sifra. The bottom line is that the house is not torn down unless the plague has returned after the stones are pulled out and the house is scraped and replastered. If the plague returns, it need not \u201cspread\u201d to a larger size than previously. The verses are to be understood in the following order: \u201cIf the plague again breaks out\u201d (v. 43), \u201cthe house shall be torn down\u201d (v. 45). But if the house is not torn down, but remains closed up for a second week, then \u201cwhoever enters the house while it is closed up shall be unclean until evening. Whoever sleeps in the house must wash his clothes, and whoever eats in the house must wash his clothes\u201d (vv. 46\u201347). After that second week, again \u201cthe priest shall come to examine: if the plague has spread in the house\u201d (v. 44), they remove the stones (and so forth) and give it another week. Then either the plague returns and the house is torn down, or it does not return and the bird procedure is performed. Under no circumstances is an eruptive plague allowed to linger beyond three weeks.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If the plague has spread in the house. All of the explanations of this passage by our Sages are words that were spoken at Sinai (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:45\u201349<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are we told (vv. 46\u201347) that anyone who enters the house shall be unclean, and that anyone who eats or sleeps in it must wash his clothes, when we are given no such instructions in ch. 13 about one who has contact with a leprous cloth?
\n\u2666 The priest must use \u201ctwo birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop\u201d (v. 49) to cleanse the house, as with the leper himself, but these are not used with the leprous cloth. What likeness do the leper and the house share that the cloth does not?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:45<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The house shall be torn down \u2026 and taken to an unclean place. Literally \u201che shall break \u2026 and he shall carry\u201d (OJPS), but the implication is that he shall have it done, not that he need do it himself. Presumably there must first be another seven-day period of closure while they wait to see \u201cif the plague has spread\u201d (v. 44), but the text is terse here. The fact that we are not told until vv. 46\u201347 about \u201cWhoever enters the house while it is closed up\u201d and so forth (rather than being told this after v. 38) is evidence for the view that there is a second seven-day waiting period.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:46<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Whoever enters the house while it is closed up. But not, of course, one who enters the house after the plague has been scraped off and replaced with other stones. I might think this applies only while the house is closed up and awaiting further inspection, but not once an eruptive plague has been definitively identified. But the text more literally says not just \u201cwhile\u201d but \u201call the while\u201d (OJPS). Once the plague has been declared malignant, even if the plague itself is scraped off, entering the house makes one unclean. Unclean until evening. But merely entering the house does not make one\u2019s clothes unclean. V. 47, however, tells us both that \u201cwhoever sleeps in the house must wash his clothes\u201d and that \u201cwhoever eats in the house must wash his clothes.\u201d The redundant repetition of \u201cmust wash his clothes\u201d tells us that anyone who stays in the house long enough to eat a meal must wash his clothes. Sleeping is specifically mentioned to indicate that even someone who is asleep\u2014if he sleeps long enough for someone to eat a meal\u2014must wash his clothes.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall be unclean until evening. After first bathing in water as required.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:47<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Whoever sleeps in the house \u2026 and whoever eats in the house. This is a more severe degree of uncleanness, so he must also wash his clothes. It goes without saying that he must also bathe and remain unclean until evening, since anyone who eats or sleeps in the house must enter it to do so.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:48<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If, however, the priest comes. At the end of the second week. And sees that the plague has not spread. This verse is intended to say what should be done if the plague remains the same in appearance after both the first and the second weeks. (See my comment to v. 44.) On the face of it, the verse tells us that the priest shall pronounce the house clean. But it then continues with the reason he pronounces it clean: For the plague has healed. \u201cI do not pronounce it clean unless it has healed.\u201d And such a plague is not considered \u201chealed\u201d unless the stones have been pulled out, the house replastered, and the plague has not returned when the house is inspected a week later. Our verse, then, is to be interpreted as follows: \u201cIf, however, the priest comes\u201d at the end of the second week \u201cand sees that the plague has not spread in the house,\u201d he shall then replaster it (which of course involves removal of the stones and scraping). Then, \u201cafter the house was replastered\u201d and after waiting a third week to see that the plague has not returned, \u201cthe priest shall pronounce the house clean, for the plague has healed.\u201d If it does return, then (as v. 45 has already explained) \u201cthe house shall be torn down\u201d and so forth.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:49<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall take. Rather, as in v. 4, he shall have them brought.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
To purge the house, he shall take two birds. A leper remains unclean after the bird procedure is performed until his offerings are brought. A house becomes clean by this procedure alone\u2014since it is impossible to immerse a house in water (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:50\u201315:2<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 If the \u201cdischarges\u201d and so forth of this chapter are illnesses, why are the other illness of the body\u2014whether of nose and throat or of the digestive system\u2014not mentioned here?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:53<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Thus he shall make expiation for the house, and it shall be clean. Note that this expiation is performed by releasing the bird so that it can carry all his transgressions away, out of the city and into the open country, just as a goat is sent off to the wilderness for Azazel. Since the plague that appears in a man\u2019s house is not punished as severely as one that appears on his body, he is not required to make a guilt offering or sin offering. In the case of the house, the initial step that the leper must perform for his cleansing\u2014bringing the birds, cedar, crimson, and hyssop\u2014is sufficient to achieve expiation.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Thus he shall make expiation for the house. The straightforward sense of the Hebrew here is simply \u201cthus he shall cleanse the house\u201d\u2014the eruption itself has expiated the sin. There is no real expiation involved in the procedure. The same is true of a woman who gives birth or a person with a discharge. It is just a matter of cleaning (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:54<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Every eruptive affection. This phrase (by process of elimination) refers to burns and inflammations. They are mentioned first because they are more common than the other affections that are subsequently listed by name. Scalls. These are reasonably common.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:56<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Discolorations. The unusual vowel combination here is a result of this being the last word of the verse. An e vowel will often move backward (at the end of a verse, or before any other significant pause) to precede an a vowel before a \u05d4, \u05d7, or \u05e2.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
For swellings, for rashes, or for discolorations. The last listed are those with which the section began, back in 13:2. Note that \u201cdiscoloration\u201d is listed last wherever it appears, for it is the worst, most severe of all of these affections.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 14:57<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
To determine when they are unclean and when they are clean. More literally, \u201cto teach the day when it is unclean, and the day when it is clean\u201d\u2014that is, the days on which the priest is to declare it clean or unclean.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When they are unclean and when they are clean. \u201cThey\u201d being the person, the piece of cloth, or the house.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Such is the ritual concerning eruptions. Such and no more. Though we know many more types of skin disease than are mentioned here, we do not put them in this category. As Prov. 30:6 tells us, \u201cDo not add to His words\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:1<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron. This was addressed to Aaron as well as Moses because (according to our Sages) it is the priests who will have to decide \u201cbetween blood and blood\u201d (Deut. 17:8)\u2014that is, between a woman who is menstruating and one with an abnormal discharge. A leprous affection is obvious to all; now begins the section explaining uncleanness of the hidden sort.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When any man has a discharge issuing from his member. I might have thought a discharge of any kind would make a man unclean; the text, however, specifies a discharge from some part \u201cof his flesh\u201d (OJPS). Once the text has made this subtle distinction in the use of the word \u201cflesh,\u201d I am enabled to understand the rules for a male with a discharge by examining the rules for a female. Since a female has this severe category of discharge in the same place where she has the less serious discharge of menstruation, I learn that a male too has the more severe category in the same place where he has the less serious \u201cdischarge\u201d of ejaculation. He is unclean. Rather, \u201chis discharge, it is unclean.\u201d The discharge itself conveys uncleanness, not just the man. A discharge resembles liquid in which barley has been soaked; it is watery and resembles the white of an infertile egg, while semen is sticky and resembles the white of a fertile egg.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
A discharge issuing from his member. Our Sages have explained the difference in appearance between a discharge and semen.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When any man has a discharge issuing. More literally, \u201coozing\u201d or \u201cdripping,\u201d as in \u201ca land flowing with milk and honey.\u201d From his member. Literally, \u201cout of his flesh\u201d (OJPS), but this is a euphemism for the penis.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:3\u20137<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Runs. Like a clear juice. Or is stopped up. It comes forth cloudy, and stops up the mouth of his organ. His flesh is therefore stopped up by the drop of his discharge. That is the straightforward meaning of the text. But it is further interpreted as follows: V. 2 invokes \u201cdischarge\u201d twice (for \u201cissuing\u201d really comes from the same root) and then declares him unclean, while our verse says \u201cdischarge\u201d three times and only then mentions his uncleanness. How is this to be understood? Twice is enough for him to become unclean; a third time requires him to bring an offering.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
His member runs with the discharge. \u201cHe scratched marks on the doors of the gate and let his saliva run down his beard\u201d (1 Sam. 21:14). That is to say, his member is dripping with a discharge that is watery like semen. Or is stopped up. Having coagulated and stuck to his member.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The uncleanness from his discharge shall mean the following. The sense of this phrase is that the following words describe the two different kinds of discharge. Runs. As in \u201cHe scratched marks on the doors of the gate and let his saliva run down his beard\u201d (1 Sam. 21:14). Stopped up. That is, closed: \u201cIf it is handed to one who can read and he is asked to read it, he will say, \u2018I can\u2019t, because it is sealed\u2019 \u201d (Isa. 29:11). In this case, the discharge sticks together and solidifies, and the ejaculate does not come forth when he sleeps with a woman.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:4\u20136<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any bedding on which the one with the discharge lies \u2026 Whoever sits on an object on which the one with the discharge has sat. Note that the rules for something upon which one lies and something upon which one sits are exactly the same. The consequences for one who touches either of them are the same as well.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Bedding. More literally, \u201canything lain on\u201d\u2014that is, anything fit to be lain on. One might think this is true even if it is ordinarily used for some other purpose. So the text qualifies it by adding that it must be bedding on which the one with the discharge lies. Note that it does not say \u201con which he has lain\u201d but \u201con which he lies.\u201d This excludes the case where he has simply lain down on something convenient until someone comes along and tells him, \u201cGet up so we can do our work.\u201d Every object on which he sits. Again, it does not say \u201con which he sat\u201d but \u201con which he sits\u201d\u2014anything set aside specifically for him to sit on.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
On which he sits. Even if it is beneath a stone so that the one with the discharge has not touched it at all. The general rule for those with a discharge (including a woman who is menstruating) is that they all make whatever is beneath them unclean with a severe enough level of uncleanness to make not only another person unclean, but also that person\u2019s clothes\u2014as long as whatever is beneath the person with the discharge is something that is meant to be sat on, whether or not he himself has directly touched it.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Anyone who touches his bedding shall wash his clothes. We thus learn that bedding on which the person with the discharge has lain causes more severe uncleanness than anything else he might have touched. For the bedding becomes a primary source of uncleanness, causing the man who touches it not only to become unclean but to cause his own clothing to become unclean. But anything the person with the discharge touches other than bedding becomes a secondary source of uncleanness, which does not convey further uncleanness except to food and drink.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Whoever sits on an object. Even without touching it. Even if there are 10 things piled one atop another, they all communicate the uncleanness of the bottom object if the person with the discharge has sat on it (and the same is true of bedding).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:7<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Whoever touches the body of the one with the discharge. In this verse \u201cthe flesh\u201d (OJPS) does indeed mean any part of the person\u2019s body.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Whoever touches the body. The middle of the book of Leviticus (counting by verses) falls immediately before this verse (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:8\u201311<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If one with a discharge spits on one who is clean. And the one who is clean touches it or even carries it along without having touched it\u2014for spittle makes one unclean through carrying as well as through touch.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If one with a discharge spits on one who is clean. Even his saliva is dangerous. For these discharges are contagious. It is of course not customary to spit in front of another person except inadvertently. But if the person with the discharge spits, his saliva might fall on a person who is clean.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Any means for riding. Whether or not he has actually sat on it. For example, the pommel of a saddle is unclean as part of a \u201cmeans for riding,\u201d while the actual seat of the saddle is unclean as something on which he sits.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any means for riding. At least \u201cany means for riding\u201d identified as such by our tradition.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Whoever touches anything that was under him. Under the person with the discharge. Notice that one who touches a \u201cmeans for riding\u201d that was underneath the person with the discharge does not have to wash his clothes, an instance in which something used for bedding is treated more stringently than something used for riding. Whoever carries such things shall wash his clothes. \u201cSuch\u201d things are any of the things entailed by this phenomenon of a person with a discharge\u2014his discharge, his spittle, his semen, his urine, his bedding, his ride, his seat, all convey uncleanness in such a way that one who carries any of them thereby conveys uncleanness to his own clothes.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Anything that was under him. Not \u201cunder him,\u201d but \u201cunder it,\u201d the \u201cmeans for riding\u201d of v. 9. Anything that was under it when the one with a discharge mounted it acquires a lesser degree of uncleanness. But whoever carries such things as the person might lie, sit, or ride upon acquires a more severe degree of uncleanness.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Without having rinsed his hands in water. That is, before he has ritually immersed himself. Even once he has become clean and counted off seven days (see v. 13), until he has ritually immersed he still conveys all the kinds of uncleanness described here. The verse describes this immersion as \u201crinsing the hands\u201d to teach that water need not enter the man\u2019s body cavities, but must rinse the outer, visible surface of the body.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Without having rinsed his hands in water. That is, the one with the discharge has not immersed himself\u2014so the Sages have explained it. To me, however, it seems that (v. 3 having told us that his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up) the straightforward sense of this verse is referring to cleanliness. If he has not scrubbed his member, then, as the Sages explain in Tractate Niddah, he is still unclean even after he has ritually immersed himself. Since he has not washed himself well enough before immersing, anyone who touches him still becomes unclean. Since the discharge comes out of the penis and it is that organ which requires scrubbing, the text spoke metaphorically of washing the \u201chands.\u201d \u201cSuch is the way of an adulteress: She eats, wipes her mouth, and says, \u2018I have done no wrong\u2019 \u201d (Prov. 30:20). Note that Judg. 3:24 refers euphemistically to excretion as \u201ccovering the feet.\u201d Here too, \u201crinsing the hands\u201d refers to cleaning that place from which his discharge comes forth. Just as the point of scouring and rinsing in 6:21 is to remove the fat of the sin offering from the vessel, so too, as in the \u201cmighty waters overflowing\u201d of Isa. 28:2 and the \u201coverflowings\u201d that \u201cwash away the dust of the earth\u201d in Job 14:19, the \u201crinsing\u201d (as the English translations have it here) in our verse refers to removing the filth of the discharge from his member.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Without having rinsed his hands in water. The verse does not say \u201cif he \u2026 touches another person\u201d (as NJPS translates) but \u201cwhatsoever he touches.\u201d It would appear to us that this refers to touching food and the like, for touching is done with the hands. If he has rinsed his hands and not touched the place of the discharge since washing them, the food should not become unclean. But having seen that all of our ancestors understand \u201crinsing his hands\u201d as a reference to immersion of his body, we have accepted their words. The straightforward sense of the verse, however, is that if a clean person is touched by someone with a discharge who has rinsed his hands, the clean person becomes unclean, but his clothes do not. If the person with the discharge has not rinsed his hands, the first person\u2019s clothes become unclean as well. The distinction between rinsing the hands and not rinsing them is the same as that between touching and carrying in v. 10.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Without having rinsed his hands in water. We understand from v. 12 that our passage refers to ritual immersion as \u201crinsing in water,\u201d just as in 13:58, with regard to cloth, the same process is referred to as \u201cwashing.\u201d \u201cRinsing\u201d is an appropriate word for this because proper immersion requires that nothing should interpose between the water and the object; the water must \u201crinse\u201d it completely, as when a copper vessel must be \u201cscoured and rinsed with water\u201d (6:21). The Hebrew word is not as gentle sounding a one as the English, as we see from the prophets\u2019 use of it to describe a \u201craging torrent\u201d (Isa. 30:28; Jer. 47:2). Our verse specifies the hands because it is about touching, which is done with the hands. The sense of it is \u201cAnyone whom the person with the discharge might touch with his hands\u2014having not yet washed with water on the day of his cleansing\u2014must wash his clothes\u201d and so forth. The verb \u201crinse\u201d is used, as I said a moment ago, to make clear that the ritual \u201cbathing\u201d of v. 13 must be preceded by rinsing and scrubbing to remove anything that might interpose between his flesh and the water. It is not correct to say that mere washing of the hands prevents the one with a discharge from communicating his uncleanness to another person, for v. 7 has already told us that whoever touches any part of the body of the one with the discharge becomes unclean\u2014to say nothing of an object on which he has lain, ridden, or sat at any time before going through the entire purification process. But the Sages have interpreted the use of the word \u201crinse\u201d to indicate that the water need not enter the cavities of the person\u2019s body; it must only touch the body\u2019s exposed surfaces.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If one with a discharge \u2026 touches another person. This verse is out of place; it belongs after v. 13 (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:12\u201317<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is an emission of semen (v. 16) treated differently than a \u201cdischarge\u201d (v. 2)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
An earthen vessel that one with a discharge touches. One might think this could refer even to touching the outside of the vessel, but (as the Sifra explains) we know by comparison with the cooking vessel of 6:21 that uncleanness is conveyed not by touching the outside of an earthen vessel, but by something unclean being in the airspace inside the vessel. \u201cTouching\u201d here must therefore refer to something that touches not merely the outside of the vessel, but (in some way) the whole thing. How so? You must say that this refers to moving the vessel.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When one with a discharge becomes clean. When he ceases to have any discharge. Seven days for his cleansing. He must not experience any unclean discharge for seven consecutive \u201cclean\u201d days.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall count off seven days for his cleansing. More precisely, the Hebrew preposition here means that he counts off from his cleansing\u2014he counts seven days starting from the day when he became clean.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall count off seven days for his cleansing. The seven days are a reminder of the seven days of creation, when the world came into being and things acquired from the Blessed One the good existence they have now (Abarbanel). These are diseases of the sexual organs, and he must spend seven days cleansing his thoughts of depravity (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:15<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A sin offering. A discharge of this kind comes to discipline one for transgression.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering. Since such a discharge is a severe and contagious disease, one is required to thank God with a burnt offering when God heals him and cleanses him of it. The purpose of the sin offering is to expiate his sin so that it will not cause him to become diseased again.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:16<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When a man has an emission of semen. Involuntarily. The word translated \u201cemission\u201d looks as if it derives from the Hebrew root meaning \u201cto lie down,\u201d but in fact this root is sometimes used of spilling liquid: \u201cWhen the fall of dew lifted\u201d (Exod. 16:14); \u201cWho can tilt the bottles of the sky\u201d (Job 38:37). He shall bathe his whole body in water. The commentators understand this to mean that he shall bathe \u201chis flesh\u201d (OJPS), that is, his member. But the reference to \u201call his flesh\u201d clearly indicates that it means \u201chis whole body.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When a man has an emission of semen. The reason this makes one unclean\u2014though it is of course a natural part of procreation\u2014is that it is comparable to the uncleanness of a corpse, for the woman\u2019s uterus may waste the semen. The man who lies with a woman does not know whether his seed will perish or whether an embryo will be created from it. When, in my comment to Num. 19:2\u2014with the help of the one who \u201cdeals death and gives life\u201d (1 Sam. 2:6)\u2014I discuss the uncleanness conveyed by a corpse, the uncleanness derived from an emission of semen will also become clear to you. I will discuss some basic principles of this topic as well in my discussion of menstruation in my comment to 18:19.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When a man has an emission of semen. The reference is to a man, not a boy, since a boy\u2019s nourishment is consumed by his growth and there remains nothing for the production of seed (Gersonides). He shall bathe his whole body in water. Enough water to contain his whole body, that is, a quantity of water one cubit by one cubit and three cubits high, amounting to 40 seahs (Hizkuni). All portions of the person\u2019s body must be immersed simultaneously; it is impossible to become partially clean. If any part of his body is unclean, he is completely unclean (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:17<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All cloth or leather on which semen falls shall be washed in water. It would seem to us that the cloth or leather requires washing whether the semen is still wet or has dried. But what the tradition says is true.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:18\u201323<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 How can a man and a woman who have \u201ccarnal relations\u201d (v. 18) be unclean, when the man is thereby actually fulfilling a commandment given to him by the Torah (in Exod. 21:10) not to withhold the woman\u2019s \u201cconjugal rights\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why are the urine and waste excreted by the body not causes of uncleanness just as a man\u2019s emission of semen and a woman\u2019s menstrual discharge (v. 19) are?
\n\u2666 Why is the blood of a nosebleed\u2014not to mention blood discharged through the anus\u2014not unclean, as is menstrual blood or blood discharged during child-birth?
\n\u2666 Since the woman\u2019s discharge conveys uncleanness in the same way as that of the man in v. 2, why is she not required to bring a sacrifice of two birds, as he is?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They shall bathe in water. The fact that the woman too becomes unclean has nothing to do with semen coming into contact with her, as this occurs in a cavity of her body, and the rule about the uncleanness of semen does not apply in that case. It is simply a decree of the King of Kings that a woman should become unclean through intercourse.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When a woman has a discharge. This might theoretically refer to a discharge from anywhere on her body. But when we read in 20:18 that a menstruating woman who has intercourse has exposed \u201cthe fountain of her blood,\u201d we learn that blood does not convey uncleanness except when it comes from \u201cthe fountain.\u201d Her discharge being blood from her body. The woman\u2019s discharge is not considered an unclean discharge unless it is red. She shall remain in her impurity seven days. The same root found in the word \u201cimpurity\u201d here is found in the expression used when Job 18:18 describes one who is \u201cdriven from the world.\u201d The menstruating woman is likewise driven away from contact with other people. She remains in her impurity for seven days even if there was no flow of blood after the very first one.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Her discharge being blood. Only a reddish flow makes her unclean, unlike the white flow of a male discharge or of semen.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When a woman has a discharge. Having finished discussing the discharges involving males, the text now turns to those involving females. From her body. Literally, \u201cin her flesh\u201d (OJPS), that is, her genitals. The distinction with v. 16 is that there the text says \u201call his flesh\u201d (OJPS); see my comment there.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body. The text is lenient with a menstruating woman in the sense that it does not require her to bring a sacrifice when her period is over. The reason, again, is that this is a natural phenomenon, not a disease from which she is healed. She shall remain in her impurity seven days. Whether she experiences a blood flow only on the first day or on all seven. Women do not naturally bleed for longer than seven days unless there is an excessive flow caused by illness. But \u201cwhen a woman has had a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or when she has a discharge beyond her period of impurity\u201d (v. 25), this is an illness just like the male discharge of v. 2. She must therefore bring an offering when she is healed (vv. 28\u201330) just as the man does.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
She shall remain in her impurity seven days. No more and no less. But Jewish women have taken a stricter regimen upon themselves, waiting for seven clean days even if they see a spot of blood no bigger than a mustard seed (Bekhor Shor). Since she must \u201cremain in her impurity\u201d for all seven days, we learn that she may not immerse while it is still day (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat. Anyone who sits or lies on either of these is subject to the washing of clothes mentioned in v. 22 even if he has not directly touched either of them. The \u201cobject\u201d on which she has sat includes anything on which she has ridden as well (see my comment to v. 9). On touching it he shall be unclean. As opposed to touching her bedding or her seat, one who touches \u201cit,\u201d something on which she has ridden, does not have to wash his clothes. For contact with something on which an unclean person has ridden does not convey the level of uncleanness that can then further convey uncleanness to one\u2019s clothes.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Be it the bedding or be it the object. The first part of the verse refers to one who lies or sits on something that has been underneath her, even without touching it. On which she has sat\u2014on touching it. Rather, \u201ceven if he touches it\u201d\u2014something on which she rode. For the Sages interpret \u201con which she has sat\u201d as a reference to riding. Even in this case, he shall be unclean until evening. He is not, however, unclean to the extent that he communicates the uncleanness to his clothes, since with something on which the person rides, only carrying conveys this level of uncleanness. Touching only makes the person unclean, not his clothes.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Be it the bedding or be it the object. The translations have misunderstood this expression. The antecedent is \u201cany object on which she has sat\u201d (v. 22). Whether such an object is \u201con the bed\u201d or on any [other] object \u201cwhereon she sitteth\u201d (OJPS), it acquires a less severe degree of uncleanness. \u201cRiding\u201d is not discussed in connection with women simply because it is not common for women to ride; but the rules about something on which a woman has ridden are the same as those for men.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:24\u201328<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 The woman with a nonmenstrual discharge of blood (v. 25) must also bring two birds as a sacrifice. Why is she not treated like the woman who discharged menstrual blood?
\n\u2666 Why is corpse uncleanness\u2014the acme of all uncleanness\u2014discussed only in Numbers 19, and not here with all the other types of uncleanness, where it belongs?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Her impurity is communicated to him. One might think that even the schedule of her impurity is communicated to him, so that if he lay with her on the fifth day of her impurity he, like her, would only be unclean for that day and the next two. So the verse continues: He shall be unclean seven days. In what sense, then, is \u201cher\u201d impurity communicated to him? In the sense that he now makes people and earthen vessels unclean just as she does.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean. To the extent that it would convey uncleanness to food and drink. Anything that is below one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman is treated the same as anything that is above a man with a discharge. See B. Nid. 32b.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And if a man lies with her. Not deliberately but inadvertently, not realizing that she is menstruating. Her impurity is communicated to him. Literally, if \u201cher impurity be upon him\u201d (OJPS). The sense of the verse is that her period came on while she was with him. For if he deliberately had sex with a woman who was menstruating, it would be punishable by \u201ccutting off.\u201d (The same rules apply if the woman is having an abnormal flow, though the text omits to mention this.) Any bedding on which he lies shall become unclean. For he too is unclean for seven days and (though the text does not mention it) can convey this uncleanness to others.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Many days. Three days. Not at the time of her impurity. Continuing after the seven days of her menstrual impurity. Or when she has a discharge. Lasting three days. Beyond her period of impurity. And separated from her period of impurity by one clean day. In either such case, she is regarded as a woman with a discharge and follows the rules prescribed in this section rather than those for a woman who is simply menstruating. The woman with a discharge must count seven clean days and then bring a sacrifice, while the menstruating woman merely counts seven days, whether they are free of blood flow or not. Our Sages interpret this passage as follows: There are 11 days between the end of one menstrual period and the beginning of the next. Any woman who has a flow of blood for three consecutive days during this 11-day period is considered to have a discharge.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Not at the time of her impurity. That is, after the seven days of her impurity. As explained on B. Nid. 73a, a woman is not considered to be having a \u201cdischarge\u201d of the kind that requires a sacrifice unless she experiences a flow of blood for three consecutive days during the 11 days after her seven-day waiting period. But if such a flow occurs, whether at the beginning of the 11 days or at their end, she must count seven clean days and offer a sacrifice on the eighth.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For many days, not at the time of her impurity. For women have their periods at regular times. Or the text may also mean a discharge continuing beyond her regular period.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Many days. Three days, according to the Sages, but since husband and wife are separated, they are days of sorrow, and they seem like many days (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:28<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When she becomes clean of her discharge, she shall count off seven days, and after that she shall be clean. Notice that the text does not instruct her to wash her clothes and bathe in \u201cfresh\u201d water, as it does the man in v. 13. Since her situation is the same as his (though his discharge is white and hers is red), a straightforward understanding of the text would suggest that she too must wash in fresh water. But the Sages decided to be more lenient in this case, ruling that she (like the others who are cleansing themselves of ritual impurity) becomes clean simply through immersion in a ritual bath. They reasoned as follows: A woman in this situation falls into the same category as a man with a discharge. She is separately mentioned only because her discharge, unlike his, is bloody, and because it was necessary to distinguish between a woman\u2019s normal period and an abnormal discharge. There was therefore no need for the text to add \u201cafter that she shall be clean\u201d since this was already obvious from the case of the man. The Sages deduced that this extra mention of her becoming clean was intended to give her an extra means of cleansing herself. That is, she can also \u201cbe clean\u201d through the ordinary process of immersion, without washing in fresh water.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
She shall count off seven days. The 11 days necessary for such a discharge and its cleansing show that it is impossible for a woman\u2019s period to recur more often than every 18 days. Ordinarily, however, the time between periods is a month (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:29\u201333<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:29<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Bring them. The accent is on the last syllable of the verb\u2014quite unusual for this form.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall put the Israelites on guard. Rather, you shall \u201cseparate the children of Israel from their uncleanness\u201d (OJPS), as we see from the use of this verb in Isa. 1:4, \u201cTurned their backs on Him,\u201d and when Gen. 49:26 calls Joseph \u201cthe elect of his brothers,\u201d that is, one who is separate from them. Lest they die through their uncleanness. An unclean person who defiles the sanctuary is punished by being cut off; we see from this verse that this punishment may simply be referred to as \u201cdeath.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall put the Israelites on guard. Some take the root of this Hebrew verb to be \u05d6\u05d4\u05e8, with the \u05d4 having elided. But this is not possible. \u05d4 is not one of the letters (like \u05d0, \u05d5, and \u05d9) that may be used to indicate a vowel in the middle of a word; \u05d4 is used this way only at the end of a word and cannot simply disappear from the middle of a word. Rather, our verb is from \u05e0\u05d6\u05e8, a root that means (metaphorically) \u201cto keep oneself far from something\u201d: \u201cInstruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous\u201d (22:2). The word \u201cnazirite\u201d comes from this same root, for a nazirite keeps himself far from worldly appetites. In fact the form of our verb is quite normal for a root that begins with \u05e0, since in this form of the word the \u05e0 is regularly assimilated to the following consonant, where it is indicated by a dagesh. Lest they die through their uncleanness by defiling My Tabernacle. Literally, \u201cin their uncleanness\u201d (OJPS), but NJPS understands the preposition correctly. But both translations obscure the fact that \u201cuncleanness\u201d and \u201cdefiling\u201d come from the same root. The verse is saying that the Israelites might die because of their uncleanness\u2014if they enter the Tabernacle in that state and thus make it unclean.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall put the Israelites on guard against their uncleanness. They are not forbidden to become unclean, merely warned to avoid entering the sanctuary when they are unclean. So they must exercise particular care when they come on pilgrimage (Gersonides). My Tabernacle. This phrase occurs also only in 26:11 and Ezek. 37:27 (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Such is the ritual concerning him who has a discharge. One who has a single discharge. And what is the ritual concerning him? Just \u201csuch\u201d as that concerning him who has an emission of semen. Like one who has an emission of semen, the one who has a single discharge is unclean until evening.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And becomes unclean thereby. Rather, \u201cto become unclean thereby.\u201d For there is one case in which a man who has an emission of semen becomes permanently unclean, as I shall explain in my comment to 18:20.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Him who has an emission of semen and becomes unclean thereby. Rather, \u201cso that he can become unclean\u201d\u2014he does so \u201cat the instigation of the serpent,\u201d not for the propagation of the species. For otherwise there would be no more uncleanness in semen than there is in feces or urine (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 15:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Anyone, male or female, who has a discharge. This refers to one who has two or three discharges, for whom the rules are given in vv. 2\u201315.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Concerning anyone, male or female, who has a discharge. This clarifies that v. 32 (though it says \u201chim\u201d) refers to anyone of either sex \u201cwho has a discharge.\u201d With an unclean woman. Whether she is menstruating or experiencing an abnormal discharge.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Menstrual infirmity. \u201cInfirmity\u201d teaches that this too is a matter of sin, and that is why she is unclean (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:1\u20132<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the text say \u201cThe LORD spoke to Moses\u201d (v. 1)\u2014without saying what He spoke\u2014and then repeat \u201cThe LORD said to Moses\u201d (v. 2)?
\n\u2666 Why the redundancy of \u201cafter the death of the two sons of Aaron who died\u201d?
\n\u2666 What do the instructions in this chapter have to do with the death of Aaron\u2019s sons?
\n\u2666 Elsewhere Moses is simply told \u201cspeak to Aaron\u201d; why here (see OJPS) is it \u201cspeak to Aaron your brother\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why is Aaron, the Lord\u2019s chosen one, warned \u201cnot to come at will\u201d into the Shrine?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron. What is the purpose of this expression? R. Eleazar b. Azariah used to explain it by means of a parable: Imagine a sick person who is visited by a physician. The physician tells him, \u201cDon\u2019t eat cold food and don\u2019t sleep where it is damp.\u201d Another physician arrives and tells him, \u201cDon\u2019t eat cold food and don\u2019t sleep where it is damp, or you will die as So-and-So did.\u201d He is more likely to follow the advice given this way than the way the first physician put it. In just such a fashion, Aaron is told \u201cnot to come at will into the Shrine\u201d (v. 2) lest he die as did his sons.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
After the death of the two sons of Aaron. Aaron is warned so that he should not die, as did his sons, for entering the sanctuary without authorization.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron. Having warned the Israelites not to defile the Tabernacle while unclean lest they die, the Lord now told Moses to caution Aaron as well, lest he die as had his sons. In fact, this section is our indication that Aaron\u2019s sons brought incense inside the curtain of the Shrine. When they drew too close. The phrase \u201cdrew too close\u201d is grammatically in the infinitive construct form. It is not a noun, as Jeshua b. Judah mistakenly thought.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
After the death of the two sons of Aaron. Immediately after their death, Aaron is warned against drinking \u201cwine or other intoxicant\u201d (10:9), and Moses is further told to warn him to be careful when he approaches the Lord, \u201clest he die\u201d (v. 2). Presumably both these commandments were given on the day after their deaths. For on that day itself Aaron was in the most severe stage of mourning, and the Holy Spirit does not manifest itself in a situation of sadness. On the next day, the commandment about wine was given to Aaron, and this commandment was given to Moses. The text, however, first puts the Israelites as a whole \u201con guard against their uncleanness, lest they die through their uncleanness by defiling My Tabernacle which is among them\u201d (15:31), and only then gives this commandment, which pertains to Aaron alone.
\nIn my opinion, everything in the Torah occurred in the order in which it is written. All the places where something that had previously occurred is not recounted until later\u201425:1; Num. 7:1, and so forth\u2014are explicitly identified as such. Here too, \u201cafter the death\u201d means immediately after. But our Sages understand these words to have been part of what the Lord said to Moses, as if to say: \u201cNow that the two sons of Aaron have died by drawing too close to the Presence of the Lord, tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will into the Shrine.\u201d
\nIbn Ezra thinks this passage demonstrates that Aaron\u2019s sons brought incense inside the curtain of the Shrine, but in my opinion it is not so. First, both other places that mention this transgression tell us explicitly that the reason Nadab and Abihu died was because they offered \u201calien fire\u201d before the Lord. Second, if what Aaron is warned here not to do is supposed to demonstrate what his sons did do, the same argument would demonstrate even more strongly that what they did was to enter the Shrine while drunk, which is what Aaron is warned immediately after their deaths not to do. Third, how could they have imagined\u2014on this day of all days\u2014that they should bring their own incense into the Shrine even before their father did so? When they drew too close. I have already alluded to their real sin, which the precise wording of the text teaches us. The straightforward sense, however, is that given by the translations; compare \u201cwhen they approach the altar to serve\u201d (Exod. 30:20). (That verse uses a different Hebrew verb, but you will find our verb in, e.g., Exod. 40:32.) The point is that they died while serving the Lord. Now Aaron will be told that he must only serve the Lord when and where he is commanded to do so. It may also be that (as the Sages point out in the Mekilta) the Israelites considered the incense nothing but a means of punishment, for it had killed Nadab and Abihu. The point of our text would then be to assure Aaron that he should draw close to the Lord, even closer than had his sons, and with incense. In fact, v. 13 emphasizes that if he enters without incense he will die.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron. The text does not tell us what the Lord said when He spoke to Moses. It may be what He \u201csaid\u201d in v. 2, or perhaps what He \u201cspoke\u201d (in 10:8\u201311) immediately after the death of Aaron\u2019s sons. What intervenes between these two speeches are the details about uncleanness, which the service of the Day of Atonement, given in our chapter, will cleanse (Gersonides). The parable of R. Eleazar b. Azariah does not really sit well with the text, since the first verse does not include a command of any kind. Rather, God spoke to Moses to indicate that it was still the divine will that Moses, unlike his brother, should \u201ccome at will into the Shrine behind the curtain\u201d (v. 2) to receive prophecy (Abarbanel). One ordinarily expects to see \u201cThe Lord spoke to Moses and said,\u201d for \u201cspoke\u201d is the general term and \u201csaid\u201d gives the information about what was spoken. Here, because the intervening explanatory phrase is so long, the subject is repeated: \u201cThe LORD spoke\u201d and, in v. 2, \u201cThe LORD said\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Lest he die. If he does come in at will, he will die. For I appear in the cloud. I am always apparent there, in My pillar of cloud. Since My Shekhinah is continuously revealed there, he must be careful not to get in the habit of coming in. That is the straightforward sense of the verse. Our Sages explain it as follows: He must not enter except with a \u201ccloud\u201d of incense on the Day of Atonement. When Solomon declared, \u201cThe LORD said that He would abide in a thick cloud\u201d (1 Kings 8:12), he was referring to this verse.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
For I appear in the cloud over the cover. The straightforward sense of the Hebrew is: for I am visible at all times in the pillar of cloud that is over the cover. \u201cThere I will meet with you and speak with you\u2014from above the cover, from between the two cherubim\u201d (Exod. 25:22). If the priest should see this, he would die. That is why, when he enters on the Day of Atonement, the Holy One commanded him to burn incense in the Holy of Holies beforehand, to darken the building with his own cloud\u2014of incense. Only after this can he bring in the blood of the bull and the blood of the ram.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Into the Shrine. Literally, \u201cthe holy place\u201d (OJPS). It refers to the Holy of Holies, by contrast with the rest of the Tent of Meeting, which is less holy by comparison. For I appear in the cloud. The point is that Aaron should not enter the Shrine without the cloud made by the incense and should not look at the Presence of the Lord, lest he die. That is, God is saying, \u201cI will not appear to him except with the cloud of incense.\u201d Others say that the sense is \u201cFor I reside in the cloud above the Ark cover,\u201d as in Solomon\u2019s declaration at the dedication of the Temple that \u201cThe LORD has chosen to abide in a thick cloud\u201d (1 Kings 8:12).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Your brother. You must warn him about this as a brother. For even though the commandment not to come at will into the Shrine does not apply to you, it does apply to him. He is not to come at will into the Shrine. We have already been told of the inner, incense altar that \u201cOnce a year Aaron shall perform purification upon its horns with blood of the sin offering of purification\u201d (Exod. 30:10), and this, the Day of Atonement, is that once-a-year occasion. Only \u201cthus\u201d (v. 3) may Aaron enter the Shrine on the day when he brings these atonement offerings. As our passage goes on to say, only on this day does Aaron go \u201cbehind the curtain\u201d (v. 12): \u201cIn the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month\u201d (v. 29), \u201conce a year\u201d (v. 34). For I appear in the cloud over the cover. Note that Aaron is to \u201cbring the incense behind the curtain \u2026 and put the incense on the fire before the LORD, so that the cloud from the incense screens the cover that is over the Ark of the Pact\u201d (vv. 12\u201313). He must not enter the Shrine without the incense to create this cloud.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will into the Shrine. Though this passage discusses the Day of Atonement, it was told to Moses on the 1st of Nisan, the day the Tabernacle was set up (Hizkuni). Do not feel embarrassed and refrain from telling him not to come at will into the Shrine; even though you, his younger brother, are still permitted to do so (Abarbanel). For I appear in the cloud over the cover. That is where I concentrate my Shekhinah (Bekhor Shor). This place must be treated with the greatest respect, referring as it does to the means and manner of prophecy and the reality of the immaterial forms. The Torah emphasizes that this cover is essential for expiation. But King Josiah hid the Ark away. So in the Second Temple there must have been a replica of the Ark, cover, and cherubim (Gersonides). Rather, \u201cI only appear, this one time a year, in the cloud over the cover.\u201d The word ki, which is \u201cfor\u201d in the English translations, can also mean \u201conly\u201d or \u201cexcept\u201d; see, e.g., Gen. 17:15; Gen. 18:15; Gen. 19:2; Gen. 42:12, and many others (Abarbanel). In this generation I appear there to speak to Moses; in future generations, to call to those who are ready for prophecy. See 1 Sam. 3:3\u20134, where \u201cSamuel was sleeping in the temple of the LORD where the Ark of God was. The LORD called out to Samuel\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:3\u20134<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why say \u201cThus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine\u201d (v. 3), when that is not really what the chapter is about at all?
\n\u2666 What is the purpose of the \u201cbull of the herd for a sin offering\u201d and the \u201cram for a burnt offering\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why is Aaron\u2019s sin offering a bull (v. 3) and that of the community a he-goat (vv. 5, 9)? In 4:13, the sin offering of the community is supposed to be a bull (just like that of the High Priest in 4:3), and in Num. 15:24 the community is obligated to bring both a bull and a he-goat!
\n\u2666 We understand from vv. 29\u201333 that our chapter refers to the Day of Atonement. But since the additional offering of that day includes a he-goat as a sin offering, and each of these two he-goats \u201cpurges the Shrine of uncleanness\u201d (v. 16), isn\u2019t one of them superfluous?
\n\u2666 Why must Aaron exchange the golden vestments that he wears \u201cfor dignity and adornment\u201d (Exod. 28:2) for linen ones (v. 4) before performing these rituals?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Thus only. Numerologically, the Hebrew letters translated as \u201cthus only,\u201d or more literally, \u201cherewith\u201d (OJPS), add up to a value of 410\u2014a coded allusion to the 410 years during which the First Temple was in existence. Thus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine. Even \u201cthus,\u201d not at all times but \u201conly\u201d on the Day of Atonement: \u201cIn the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month\u201d (v. 29).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Thus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine: with a bull of the herd. This does not mean that Aaron is to bring the bull into the Shrine, but that (before entering) he must first bring his own bull as a sin offering, to make expiation for himself and the other priests. Some think he is to make expiation for the Levites as well, citing God\u2019s instruction to Moses to \u201cinscribe Aaron\u2019s name on the staff of Levi\u201d (Num. 17:18). But this is implausible. In our passage, the Levites are grouped with all the rest of the Israelites.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Thus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine. Rather, \u201cwith \u2018this\u2019 only.\u201d The mystery behind these words is comparable to that of \u201c \u2018This\u2019 shall be the sign of the covenant that I have established\u201d (Gen. 9:17), which I have already explained in my comment to Exod. 25:3. Our Sages have alluded to it in Leviticus Rabbah: R. Yudan reads the verse as follows. When the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies, he has bundles and bundles of righteous deeds in his arms, through the merit of Torah (\u201cThis is the Teaching that Moses set before the Israelites,\u201d Deut. 4:44); of circumcision (\u201cThis shall be the covenant \u2026 which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised,\u201d Gen. 17:10); of the Sabbath (\u201cHappy is the man who does this, who keeps the sabbath,\u201d Isa. 56:2); of Jerusalem (\u201cI set this Jerusalem in the midst of nations,\u201d Ezek. 5:5); of the tribes (\u201cAll these were the tribes of Israel, twelve in number, and this is what their father said to them,\u201d Gen. 49:28); of Judah (\u201cAnd this he said of Judah,\u201d Deut. 33:7); of the Assembly of Israel (\u201cThis your stately form is like the palm,\u201d Song 7:8); of the contributions to the Tabernacle (\u201cAnd this is the gift that you shall accept from them,\u201d Exod. 25:3); of the tithes (\u201cBring the full tithe into the storehouse, and \u2026 by this put Me to the test,\u201d Mal. 3:10); and of the offerings: with this only shall Aaron enter the Shrine. The matter demands a lengthy explanation, but all is in fact evident from what we have already said.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Thus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine. Only on this day, the Day of Atonement, and with this gift (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A sacral linen tunic. This tells us that Aaron does not serve inside the Shrine in the eight golden vestments in which he serves outside the Shrine\u2014for a prosecutor cannot serve as defense attorney \u2014but in the four garments of an ordinary priest, made entirely of linen. They must nonetheless be \u201csacral,\u201d that is, not his private garments but funded from the sacred donations. He shall wear a linen turban. More literally, \u201che shall set a linen turban\u201d on his head. Onkelos uses the same verb here and in Gen. 39:16, when Potiphar\u2019s wife \u201csets\u201d Joseph\u2019s cloak aside until Potiphar comes home. He shall bathe his body in water. On that day in particular, he must ritually immerse himself every time he changes his raiment. He shifts between the ritual performed inside the sanctuary and the outside ritual five times, changing each time from white garments to gold ones or vice versa. With each change he must ritually immerse himself, washing his hands and feet from the laver both before and after each immersion.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A sacral linen tunic. The robe (with its accompanying breastpiece and ephod) is not mentioned here, for we already know that \u201cAaron shall wear it while officiating, so that the sound of it is heard when he comes into the sanctuary before the LORD and when he goes out\u2014that he may not die\u201d (Exod. 28:35). But the men of the Second Temple period learned from our verse that it was permissible to officiate without wearing the Urim and Thummim. And there were prophets there as well.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall be dressed in a sacral linen tunic. Rashi explains \u201csacral\u201d to mean that they must be \u201cfunded from the sacred donations.\u201d But see further below. He shall wear a linen turban. See Rashi\u2019s comment. In fact, Onkelos\u2019s opinion on the matter is not clear to me. A turban is not simply \u201cset\u201d on one\u2019s head, but wrapped around it. Why then would Onkelos translate it simply as \u201cset\u201d? Perhaps there is no word in Aramaic for \u201cwrapping\u201d a turban? For Jonathan b. Uzziel translates the related noun in Isa. 3:23 as \u201ccrowns\u201d rather than as something to be wrapped around the head. When the Aramaic translations do use the same root as in Hebrew, they may simply be borrowing it. They are sacral vestments. That is, not just the tunic but all the priestly vestments must be so funded, both those of the High Priest and those of the ordinary priests. This is how the Sifra explains it. A straightforward reading, however, would simply be that these garments, like those described in Exod. 28:4, are \u201csacral vestments,\u201d devoted to the sacred service. The mystery behind these linen garments, though, is like that of \u201cthe man clothed in linen\u201d (Ezek. 9:11), which is why these vestments are declared to be \u201choly\u201d (OJPS). As Leviticus Rabbah explains, just as in the service on high there is \u201cone among them clothed in linen\u201d (Ezek. 9:2), so too is there one in the service on earth.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall be dressed in a sacral linen tunic. Rather than in his regular gold vestments, for the red of the gold is like the red that is symbolic of sin (Bekhor Shor). Each of the four vestments listed is separately identified as being made of linen. This phraseology specifically excludes the other four of the High Priest\u2019s vestments. Though each of the other four is described as being worn when he comes \u201cbefore the LORD,\u201d they are not worn when he is immediately before the Lord (Hizkuni). The whiteness of the garments points to physicality as the source of uncleanness; the High Priest removes himself from the material world when he takes off his gold vestments and enters the Shrine in a lowly state (Gersonides). Ordinarily, the High Priest, though he deals with blood and ash, wears magnificent garments of gold and jewels, to demonstrate that these apparently gross tasks are holy rituals. But now, entering directly before his Master, it is not proper that he act pridefully. Moreover, he is now removed from the world of eating and drinking and transferred to the World to Come, so he dresses in white like one who has passed on (Abarbanel). This is how the angels appear to the prophets\u2014in clothing that is undyed and without artificial designs (Sforno). With linen breeches next to his flesh. \u201cFlesh\u201d is a euphemism for the genitals (Hizkuni). He shall bathe his body in water. The Torah requires one to sanctify one\u2019s hands and feet by washing even at times when one does not bathe; how much the more so at those times (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:5\u20136<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:5<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
From the Israelite community. From the half-shekel donations of Exod. 30:11\u201316 (Gersonides). He shall take two he-goats. The two he-goats allude to Esau and Jacob, for \u201che-goat\u201d is sa\u2019ir; Esau was an ish sa\u2019ir (\u201ca hairy man\u201d), and Jacob was the tsa\u2019ir, the \u201cyounger\u201d of the two. For the two goats are an equal pair, but God gives His inheritance to one and separates the other far from His service and His love. But it is even more correct to say that the two goats represent the two sides of \u201cthe Israelite community\u201d from whom Aaron takes them: the good and the bad (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
His own bull of sin offering. This is the \u201cbull of the herd for a sin offering\u201d mentioned in v. 3. The additional information you learn from this verse is that it must be purchased with his private money, not with public funds. To make expiation for himself and for his household. He confesses over it his sins and those of his household.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Aaron is to offer his own bull of sin offering, to make expiation for himself and for his household. He \u201cmakes expiation\u201d by immediately confessing his sins over it. But our text more literally says that he is \u201cto present\u201d it (OJPS)\u2014he is to bring it into the enclosure for the purpose of offering it to make expiation: \u201cHe shall slaughter his bull of sin offering\u201d (v. 11). This is the straightforward sense.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Aaron is to offer his own bull of sin offering. Rather, he is to \u201cpresent\u201d it (OJPS) at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, as was the rule. To make expiation for himself and for his household. By its eventual slaughter. But some say that presenting it and confessing over it effects expiation.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
To make expiation for himself and his household. His wife and the ordinary priests who are his sons; \u201chis household\u201d of v. 11 refers to the other priests. We learn incidentally that the High Priest must be married in order to carry out the service of the Day of Atonement; this keeps him free of impure thoughts, since he already (as it were) has some bread in his basket (Gersonides). NJPS correctly translates the vav as \u201cto\u201d (here and in v. 11) rather than \u201cand\u201d (OJPS); there is therefore no redundancy in the expression (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:7\u20138<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 How can the Israelites possibly offer a goat \u201cfor Azazel\u201d (v. 8)? Exod. 22:19 tells us, \u201cWhoever sacrifices to a god other than the LORD alone shall be proscribed!\u201d
\n\u2666 How can the Torah leave to chance the distinction between the goats for the Lord and for Azazel?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall place lots upon the two goats. He places one of the goats at his right and the other at his left. Then he puts both of his hands into the urn, takes one lot in his right hand and the other in his left, and places his hands on the goats. The goat that receives the lot marked for the LORD goes to the Lord, and the one that receives the lot marked for Azazel is sent off to Azazel. Azazel. Etymologically, the word refers to a rugged mountain with a steep cliff: it is \u201ca land which is cut up\u201d (v. 22; compare OJPS), that is, craggy.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Lots. We know what these were from our ancestral traditions. Azazel. According to Saadia, this is the name of a mountain, so called because it was precipitous; note \u201cthe mighty mountains\u201d of Ps. 36:7 (more literally \u201cmountains of El\u201d) and the cliff renamed Joktheel in 2 Kings 14:7. But Halevi caught him, for the \u05d0 of the word el is not next to the l in Azazel but in between the two zs. Some think that this mountain was near Mount Sinai and that God commanded them to lead the goat there on this one specific occasion and cause it to climb until it stumbled\u2014the evidence being the statement in v. 34 that (on this occasion) Aaron himself did what the Lord had commanded. In after years they would lead the goat from the sanctuary to some other mountain. (See my comment to 23:11 for another example where the text describes the Israelites\u2019 specific situation in the wilderness rather than a more general rule for the later period when they would dwell in the land.) Others think that the ritual in Second Temple times was different than that of the First Temple, for High Priests of the Second Temple did not have the priestly vestments, nor was the Ark cover there.
\nThis one commentator says that the goat was simply released in the wilderness, as v. 22 seems to indicate, like the bird \u201cset free in the open [that is, uninhabited] country\u201d (14:7) to cleanse the leper. We have responded to him that the goat was indeed released into the wilderness as the text says. But it was chased so that it would flee and climb a cliff. In fact, the Sages of the Talmud say that it was pushed. Samuel b. Hophni says that the goat which was set free was \u201cfor the Lord\u201d just like the goat that was used for a sin offering. But there was no need to worry about the use of this expression. The goat that was released was not slaughtered, and it was therefore not a sacrificial offering.
\nIf you have been able to understand the mystery behind the word Azazel, you will know both its secret and the secret of its name. For there are others like it in the Bible. I shall reveal a bit of the mystery to you, allusively; when you are 33, you will know it.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The other marked for Azazel. Rashi explains \u201cAzazel\u201d with reference to v. 22, as does the Sifra. If this is correct, \u201cAzazel\u201d comes from the root \u05e2\u05d6\u05d6, referring to strength or harshness: e.g., \u201cthe LORD, mighty and valiant\u201d (Ps. 24:8). See further the comment of Ibn Ezra, who speaks in riddles, like the \u201ctrustworthy soul who keeps a confidence\u201d of Prov. 11:13. But do not think of me as the \u201cbase fellow who gives away secrets\u201d of the same verse, for our Sages have already given away this secret many times over. Genesis Rabbah explains v. 22, \u201cthe goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region,\u201d as follows: The goat, sa\u2019ir, is Esau, who is described as \u201ca hairy man\u201d (also sa\u2019ir) in Gen. 27:11. \u201cTheir iniquities,\u201d avonotam, are really avonot tam, \u201cthe iniquities of the innocent one,\u201d that is, Jacob, who is described as \u201ca mild man\u201d (ish tam) in Gen. 25:27. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer explains that Azazel is Samael, Israel\u2019s accuser, who is being (as it were) bribed with this offering. The mystery behind this ritual is simply that the Israelites were worshiping the angels as if they were gods. \u201cYou took your embroidered cloths to cover them; and you set My oil and My incense before them. The food that I had given you\u2014the choice flour, the oil, and the honey, which I had provided for you to eat\u2014you set it before them for a pleasing odor. And so it went\u2014declares the Lord GOD\u201d (Ezek. 16:18\u201319).
\nIf you look carefully at those two verses, however, you will find that tradition instructs us to read them as saying \u201cyou set before them,\u201d but what is actually written is, \u201cI set before them.\u201d Now the Torah utterly forbids worshiping the angels or accepting their divinity. But the Holy One commanded that on the Day of Atonement we send a goat out in the wilderness to the prince who rules over the waste places. He warrants this because astrologically he is the master of all the different sorts of destruction that come upon the earth. The basic idea is that there is a spirit related to the sphere of Mars whose portion among the nations of the earth is that of Esau, the nation that inherited war and the sword, and whose portion among the animals is that of the goats. Also among their portion are the destructive demons (see 17:7). The text applies the word sa\u2019ir to all of these. The point is not, God forbid, that the goat is sent to Azazel as our offering to him, but simply that our intent should be to fulfill the will of our Creator, who commanded us to do so. It is like one who makes a feast for a great lord and is commanded by that great lord, \u201cGive one portion to my servant So-and-So.\u201d It is not done for the servant\u2019s sake but for that of the great lord, who wished in this way to give his servant a reward. For the lord wished his servants to enjoy the feast as well so that they would speak well of the one who gave the feast, not ill. This is the point of the lots. If the High Priest were to simply designate one of the goats for Azazel, it would be as if he were worshiping him and making a vow to his name. But when he \u201clets them stand before the LORD at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 7), both are clearly gifts to the Lord, who then (via the lots) gives one of them to the Lord\u2019s servant, as his portion from the Lord. For \u201cit is He who apportioned it to them by lot\u201d (Isa. 34:17)\u2014\u201cLots are cast into the lap; the decision depends on the LORD\u201d (Prov. 16:33). Even once a goat is designated by lot for Azazel, it is \u201cleft standing alive before the LORD\u201d (v. 10), to indicate that by sending it off to the wilderness, all we intend to do with it is to fulfill His will. That is why we ourselves do not slaughter it. Ibn Ezra alludes to this mystery in his comment to 17:7. But etymologically \u201cAzazel\u201d is a straightforward compound word, of which there are many in the Bible. And this is all that can be explained without delving into the relationship of the spirits and the separate intelligences to the sacrifices. This can be known with regard to the spirits via the science of necromancy, and with regard to the separate intelligences as well from allusions made to them in the Torah\u2014for those who can understand their secrets. I cannot discuss this any further, for we must stop up the mouths of those natural philosophers who follow the Greek, who denied everything that he could not perceive with his senses, and was so presumptuous as to decide, he and his wicked disciples, that anything he could not derive logically could not be true.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Lots. Lots, especially in the hands of God\u2019s faithful, are how one seeks God\u2019s word (Sforno). Azazel. The name is a compound word, az azel: \u201cthe goat went.\u201d The verb azal is more common in Aramaic, where it is the equivalent of Hebrew halakh (Kimhi).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Leviticus 10:1 RASHBAM Nadab and Abihu each took his fire pan. They had already done so (before the fire came forth from before the Lord), in order to turn the incense into smoke inside, on the golden altar\u2014for the incense offered in the morning must precede the burning of the sacrificial parts. But they put … <\/p>\n