Leviticus 16:9\u201312<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why could the incense not have been put on the coals beforehand so that it could be more easily carried \u201cbehind the curtain\u201d (v. 12)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Which he is to offer as a sin offering. Rather, \u201che makes it a sin offering.\u201d When he places the lot \u201cfor the LORD\u201d upon it, he declares: \u201cIt is a sin offering for the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Which he is to offer as a sin offering. By slaughtering it. The OJPS translation, \u201cand offer him for a sin offering,\u201d suggests that he slaughters it immediately, but this is not the case; see v. 15.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Which he is to offer as a sin offering. Rather, \u201cit makes it a sin offering.\u201d The lot makes it a sin offering (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Shall be left standing alive. Why are we told that it is left standing \u201calive\u201d? I would not know whether he is to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel to die or to live. The verse, however, explains that it is left standing alive until it is sent off, after which it is to die. To make expiation with it. Here again he must \u201cconfess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites\u201d (v. 21).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
To send it off to the wilderness. The straightforward sense is that it is to be let go, alive, to the other goats in the wilderness, just as we saw with the procedure for cleansing a leper: \u201che shall set the live bird free in the open country\u201d (14:7). Here too, in order to cleanse Israel of their iniquities, the goat is released into the wilderness. The Hebrew word can definitely indicate a region of animal pasturage: \u201cNow Moses, tending the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, drove the flock into the wilderness\u201d (Exod. 3:1). The Mishnah uses an adjective derived from this same Hebrew term to designate pasture animals, in contrast to the domestic animals that live with their owners in settled areas. For Azazel. Rather, \u201cto the goats\u201d (\u05e2\u05d6\u05d6). The -el ending of this word is simply a grammatical suffix; you will find another example in \u201cBeth-arbel\u201d of Hosea 10:14. Other such suffixes in Hebrew are -am and -on.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
To make expiation with it. For expiation was made by means of it (not \u201cover\u201d it, as OJPS translates) by sending it off to the wilderness.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
To make expiation with it. The Holy One takes out His anger on it, turning His wrath away from Israel (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
To make expiation for himself and his household. This is a second confession (see v. 6), for himself and for his brethren the priests, who are all considered his household: \u201cO house of Aaron, bless the LORD\u201d (Ps. 135:19). We thus learn that the sins of the priests are expiated through this bull, at least with regard to expiating the uncleanness of the sanctuary and the sacred things: \u201cThus he shall purge the Shrine of uncleanness\u201d (v. 16).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin offering. Because the section about the goats goes on for so long, the text now returns to the subject of v. 6. After presenting the bull and the two goats at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, he begins the ritual by slaughtering his own bull.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Scooped from the altar. The outer altar. Before the LORD. From the side of the altar facing the entrance to the Tent, that is, the western side. Finely ground aromatic incense. But is not all the incense finely ground? Exod. 30:36 tells us that it is beaten \u201cinto powder\u201d! In our verse, then, the incense must be as finely ground as possible. On the eve of the Day of Atonement, it was put back into a mortar and ground even more finely than before.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A panful of glowing coals. Rather, \u201cthe fire, full of glowing coals.\u201d Two handfuls. More precisely, \u201chis two [cupped] hands full.\u201d Finely ground aromatic incense. See Exod. 30:34 and my comment there.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Two handfuls of finely ground aromatic incense. The adjective translated \u201cfinely ground\u201d appears in the feminine singular only one other place in the Bible, in the \u201cstill, small voice\u201d of 1 Kings 19:12 (Masorah). Holding a double handful of incense, how could he carry the fire pan? He therefore carries the incense in a ladle. But he must put it back in his cupped hands to throw it on the fire. So he holds the ladle in his teeth or whatever other way he can to transfer the incense back to his hands (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:13\u201318<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What is the point of burning incense at all, especially \u201cbefore the LORD\u201d (v. 13)?
\n\u2666 What explains the differences in sprinkling the blood among vv. 14, 15, 18, and 19?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On the fire. On the fire in the pan full of glowing coals. Lest he die. To perform this in any way other than exactly as instructed is a capital offense.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall put the incense on the fire before the LORD. He must not put the incense on the fire outside and then carry it in (Bekhor Shor). So that the cloud from the incense screens the cover that is over the Ark of the Pact. For he must not feast his eyes on the Holy of Holies (Bekhor Shor). As we know from Exod. 33:20, \u201cman may not see Me and live\u201d (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Sprinkle it with his finger. Here he sprinkles it just once. In front of the cover he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. Thus he sprinkles it above the Ark just once, and below, toward the front of the Ark, seven times.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Over the cover \u2026 and in front of the cover. It would seem to us that these phrases are meant literally: \u201cupon the cover\u201d (OJPS) and \u201con the face [the front] of the cover.\u201d But our tradition says that he stands between the poles of the Ark and sprinkles the blood once upward, \u201cabove the cover,\u201d and seven times downward, \u201cin front of the cover.\u201d And this is the truth.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The people\u2019s goat. The goat makes expiation for the Israelite people in general just as the bull does specifically for the priests. This is \u201cthe goat designated by lot for the LORD\u201d (v. 9). As he has done with the blood of the bull. Once above the cover of the Ark and seven times in front of it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall then slaughter the people\u2019s goat of sin offering. He of course comes out of the Shrine before he slaughters the goat. (Some think he slaughters it before he slaughters the bull, but that is not correct.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The uncleanness and transgression of the Israelites. He makes expiation for those who unwittingly entered the Shrine in a state of uncleanness and never realized that they had done so, for the verse explains that this takes effect whatever their sins. The precise word used here refers specifically to inadvertent violations. But \u201ctransgression\u201d indicates a deliberate violation, entering the Shrine when one knows that one is unclean. He shall do the same for the Tent of Meeting. Just as he sprinkled the Ark once above and seven times below with the blood of the bull and with the blood of the goat, so too he sprinkles the blood of each of them at the outer curtain, once above and seven times below. Which abides with them in the midst of their uncleanness. Despite their uncleanness, the Shekhinah abides among them.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Thus he shall purge the Shrine. Literally, \u201cthe holy\u201d (see OJPS)\u2014that is, the Holy of Holies. As you can see from OJPS as well, the verb translated \u201cpurge\u201d by NJPS really means \u201cto make atonement\u201d; it is the same verb translated elsewhere as \u201cto expiate.\u201d The blood serves as a ransom for his own blood so that he is not destroyed on account of the uncleanness of those among the Israelites who are unclean. And he shall do the same for the Tent of Meeting. He shall sprinkle the blood seven times \u201cin front of\u201d the curtain and on the horns of the incense altar.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:17<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Nobody else. No other priest. To make expiation in the Shrine. In the Holy of Holies. When he has made expiation for himself and his household. By means of \u201chis bull of sin offering\u201d (v. 11). And for the whole congregation of Israel. By means of \u201cthe people\u2019s goat of sin offering\u201d (v. 15).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD. This refers to the golden incense altar that is inside the sanctuary. Why then does he \u201cgo out\u201d to it? When he sprinkles the blood on the curtain, he is standing in between the altar and the curtain. In order to put the blood on the altar, he may not simply turn around, but must \u201cgo (further) out\u201d to a position between the altar and the opening of the Tent. Purge it. How does he do this?\u2026 He shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the goat, mix them together, and apply it to each of the horns of the altar, starting with the horn on the northeastern side. This is the \u201conce a year\u201d occasion described in Exod. 30:10.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall go out to the altar. The sacrificial altar, outside the Tent.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and purge it. The blood that is sprinkled in front of the Ark cover (vv. 14 and 15) makes expiation for the uncleanness of the inner sanctuary and its holy objects; the blood that is sprinkled on the curtain when \u201che shall do the same for the Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 16) makes expiation for the uncleanness of the outer part of the sanctuary and its holy objects, i.e., the lampstand, the table, the bread of display, and the curtain itself. The applications of blood on the inner altar, and the blood that is sprinkled upon it (here and in v. 19), make expiation for that altar itself as well as the holy things associated with it, i.e., the incense. Because each of these actions performs a different expiation, the text uses the expression \u201cto make atonement\u201d three times, in vv. 16, 17, and 18 (see OJPS; NJPS translates two of them as \u201cpurge\u201d and one as \u201cmake expiation\u201d). The Sifra derives the same thing from v. 20, which describes the High Priest as purging (1) the Shrine, (2) the Tent of Meeting, and (3) the altar (by which they, like us, understand the inner altar)\u2014each is a separate expiation. For this reason, tradition indicates that if the blood is spilled at any point during this ritual, when the priest returns with fresh blood he goes back to the beginning of whichever stage of the process was interrupted, not to the beginning of the entire ritual.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:19\u201321<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does Aaron \u201cconfess \u2026 all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites\u201d (v. 21) over the goat sent to Azazel rather than the one offered to the Lord to purge the Shrine of them?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The rest of the blood. From what is left of the mixture of the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat that he applied to the horns of the altar, he shall sprinkle on top of the altar seven times. Thus he shall cleanse it. Of what has passed. And consecrate it. For the future.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
On it. Literally \u201con top\u201d of it, not \u201con the upper half of it\u201d\u2014for the golden altar, unlike the outside altar, was not divided into an upper and a lower section (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A designated man. Rather, \u201ca man who has had time\u201d to prepare for the task, having been readied for it on the previous day.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Through a designated man. Rather, a \u201ctimely\u201d man\u2014someone whom they are accustomed to send at any time on such a mission because he is expert at traveling through the wilderness.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Putting them on the head of the goat. Now that the sins are removed from the Israelites, they are (as it were) put on the head of the goat and they go forth to a place where they will no longer be remembered. Though this is strictly symbolic, the text describes it this way so that everyone will understand it. A designated man. More precisely, a man who is prepared for this special \u201ctime.\u201d Or perhaps it refers to one whose custom it is to go each year at this time for expiation. Those who explain this phrase to mean a wise man, one who \u201cknows what time it is,\u201d are in my opinion not correct. Our Sages have said that the man who carries out this task is a priest, and their words are true.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Putting them on the head of the goat. Such phrasing is not used either with Aaron\u2019s bull, with the goat of sin offering that is designated for the Lord, or with the laying of hands on any other sacrifice. For the sacrifices are offered for acceptance \u201cover the LORD\u2019S offering by fire\u201d (4:35), and they are indeed acceptable and serve as expiation. But this goat is not offered to God. Indeed, the one who does receive it neither \u201caccepts\u201d it nor expiates anything. It simply bears away the transgressions of the Israelites\u2014like the wicked angel who accompanies one home from synagogue on Friday evening, sees everything beautifully set out for the Sabbath meal, hears the good angel say, \u201cMay it be this way next Friday as well!\u201d and has no choice but to reply \u201cAmen!\u201d When Israel is innocent of iniquity and sin, its sins are indeed \u201ccarried away\u201d; the expression is used by many verses in the Torah and in the Prophets. Here too, \u201cthe goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region\u201d (v. 22). That is why, when this goat is sent off to the wilderness through a designated man, the strip of crimson cloth turns white at the moment when the goat, having been pushed off the cliff, falls to its death and becomes nothing but a dismembered carcass, as described in rabbinic literature.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat. This is the source from which we learn that laying on of hands always involves both hands (Hizkuni). He is not merely to touch the goat, but to press on it with all his strength (Gersonides). Iniquities and transgressions. Beginning, as the Hebrew words show, with the least and moving on to the greatest (Gersonides). A designated man. Rather, as the midrash informs us, \u201ca time-bound man\u201d\u2014one who is bound to die within the year. For this man never lived out the year, so they would choose someone who the astrological signs (which were easy for them to understand) said would die during that year (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:22\u201324<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 If the rituals of this day must be performed in linen vestments, why then at a certain point must Aaron take them off and put on his golden vestments (vv. 23\u201324)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:22<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
An inaccessible region. Rather, \u201ca dry, waste region\u201d where nothing grows, one that is (literally) \u201ccut off\u201d (OJPS) from anything good.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
An inaccessible region. Rather, \u201ca wasteland\u201d where no one lived, for if the goat was taken to a fertile area, nothing would ever grow there again (Hizkuni). If the man designated to take it there cannot do so without eating, he is permitted to eat, for the goat must be set free on the Day of Atonement (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Aaron shall go into the Tent of Meeting. Our Sages have said that this verse is out of place. They explain their reasoning on B. Yoma 32a and 71a. The whole passage is written in sequence except for this entrance into the Tent of Meeting, which really follows the offerings made in vv. 24 and 25. They are of course performed outside, while he is wearing his golden vestments. He then removes them, washes his hands and feet, immerses himself, and puts on his linen vestments. Only then does he \u201cgo into the Tent of Meeting\u201d to bring out the ladle and the fire pan with which he offered the incense (v. 13). Take off the linen vestments. He actually does this only after bringing the ladle and the fire pan out of the Tent, after which he dons the golden vestments for the regular burnt offering at twilight. The order of the rituals performed on this day is as follows: (1) the regular morning offering (performed in golden vestments); (2) the bull and goat rituals, and the burning of the incense in the fire pan (performed in linen vestments); (3) his ram, that of the people, and some of the additional offerings (in gold); (4) removal of the incense ladle and fire pan (in linen); (5) the rest of the additional offerings, the regular twilight offering, and the incense on the inner altar (in gold). The order of the verses that describe these rituals is therefore v. 22, vv. 24\u201328, v. 23. And leave them there. The purpose of this expression is to teach that these four garments must be put away and not reused on another Day of Atonement.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
And Aaron shall go into the Tent of Meeting. See Rashi\u2019s comment. This verse does indeed demand \u201cExplain me.\u201d In no way, shape, or form can the verse be understood to mean that Aaron is supposed to go into the Tent of Meeting for no other reason than to take off his linen vestments (leaving him standing naked in the Shrine of the Lord) and abandon them there to rot. Inescapably, we must understand that Aaron is to enter the Tent for a ritual purpose that the text did not bother to spell out: to remove the incense ladle and the fire pan. A careful reading of v. 13 makes clear that he is to ladle incense on the fire until it creates a cloud, at which point he immediately exits, leaving the ladle and the fire pan there. No matter how you look at it, they will have to be removed at some point. So now, in our verse, Aaron goes in to retrieve what he left behind. Our passage does not mention that Aaron actually begins the service of the day in his gold vestments, offering the regular daily sacrifice. It begins its description with the rituals performed while he wears the linen vestments\u2014the incense, the bull, the goat whose blood is sprinkled inside the Shrine, the goat that is sent off to the wilderness. When all of these are done in order, there is no task left to be done in the linen vestments other than retrieving the ladle and the fire pan. In general, the text always prefers to complete whatever discussion it has begun, even if that means that it ends up mentioning something that takes place a bit later than something else which is yet to be mentioned. And leave them there. After coming back out, he leaves the linen garments in the place where he took them off, symbolizing that he does not wear them again on another Day of Atonement.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
And leave them there. When the High Priest brings them close to God, they acquire an added level of sanctity; it is therefore not fitting that he continue to wear them when he himself returns to a lower state of sanctity (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall bathe his body in water. We have already learned from v. 4, \u201che shall bathe his body in water and then put them on,\u201d that when he changes from the golden vestments to the linen ones he must immerse himself. (In that verse he was changing from the golden vestments that he wore for the regular morning offering into the special linen vestments needed for the rituals of the Day of Atonement.) Here we learn that when he changes from the linen vestments back to the golden ones he must also immerse himself. In the holy precinct. The \u201choly place\u201d (OJPS) referred to here is a location at the same level of holiness as the courtyard; it was on the roof of Parvah Hall. All of the last four immersions took place there. But the first immersion took place in a nonsacred location. Put on his vestments. The eight vestments in which he performs the sacred rituals during all the other days of the year. Then he shall come out. From the sanctuary to the courtyard, where the sacrificial altar is. Offer his burnt offering. This is the \u201cram for a burnt offering\u201d of v. 3. The burnt offering of the people. The \u201cram for a burnt offering\u201d of v. 5.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In the holy precinct. Literally, \u201cin a holy place\u201d (OJPS), but in fact it refers to the sacred enclosure around the Tent of Meeting. Obviously, they would hold up a sheet in front of him to give him some privacy while he bathed and changed. His vestments. The ones in which he performed the rituals on every other day. But some think he puts the linen vestments mentioned in v. 23 back on; the evidence for this view is that our text does not say (e.g.) \u201cHe shall take off his vestments and put on other vestments\u201d (as in 6:4). His burnt offering. The ram of v. 3. The burnt offering of the people. The ram of v. 5 as well as the bull and the seven yearling lambs mentioned in Num. 29:8.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall bathe his body in water in the holy precinct and put on his vestments. \u201cHis\u201d vestments are those that he wears year round. Once all the rituals performed in the linen garments have been listed in order, the text moves from the inside rituals, performed while wearing linen, to the rituals performed on the outer altar while wearing gold. We see, then, that the text mentions the first occasion when he puts on the linen garments (v. 4) and the last occasion when he takes them off (v. 23), indicating in both places that he must bathe. This teaches that he must bathe every time he changes his vestments. Rashi, however, thinks that this immersion takes place after Aaron has offered the rams of vv. 3 and 5, between the additional offerings of Num. 29:7\u201311 and the regular afternoon offering, and so do the ge\u2019onim; even the Sifra appears to say so. But the Mishnah, the Palestinian Talmud, and Maimonides agree with me that the ladle and the fire pan are not removed until after the regular afternoon offering. For this retrieval was not a ritual action and so was postponed until the afternoon sacrifice had been performed. In this way\u2014by stopping to retrieve the ladle and fire pan in between the afternoon offering and the burning of the incense\u2014the five required immersions of the day are fulfilled.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall bathe his body in water. As Ps. 26:6 has it, \u201cI wash my hands in innocence, and walk around Your altar, O LORD\u201d (Abarbanel). Having laid his hands on the goat (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:25\u201328<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are the bull and the he-goat of sin offering burnt outside the camp (v. 27) rather than eaten by the priests like the additional sin offering?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The fat of the sin offering. \u201cThe sin offering\u201d refers here to the combination of the bull and the goat. He shall turn into smoke on the altar. The outer altar, for with regard to the inner altar we are told, \u201cYou shall not offer alien incense on it, or a burnt offering or a meal offering\u201d (Exod. 30:9).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The fat of the sin offering. This comes from the bull of sin offering (v. 11), the goat of sin offering (v. 15), and the additional goat of sin offering mentioned in Num. 29:11. Since these are sin offerings and not burnt offerings, the rest of the animal belongs to the priest, according to the regulation of 5:13.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:26<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water. But this is enough to cleanse him; he does not \u201cremain unclean until evening.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He who set the Azazel-goat free shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water. See my comment to v. 8. As the prophet Zechariah would later put it, \u201cI will erase the very names of the idols from the land; they shall not be uttered any more. And I will also make the \u2018prophets\u2019 and the unclean spirit vanish from the land\u201d (Zech. 13:2). From this you will understand why the one who sets the goat free, like the one who burns the red heifer, must wash his clothes.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He who set the Azazel-goat free. The text ought to have said \u201che who leads it\u201d; but, based on a usage in Job 36:12, the straightforward meaning of the verb is apparently \u201che who stabs it.\u201d Note that v. 22, which uses the same verb, does not say \u201che shall let the goat go to the wilderness\u201d (compare OJPS) but \u201cin the wilderness,\u201d confirming that it is being used here to describe not \u201cletting go\u201d but the \u201csending forth\u201d of a weapon (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:27<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Whose blood was brought in. Whose blood was brought into the sanctuary, and farther in as well, to the Holy of Holies.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall be taken outside the camp. Literally, \u201che shall take them out\u201d; but this does indeed mean that he shall have it done (by someone). Their hides, flesh, and dung shall be consumed in fire. Again, the text literally says that \u201cthey shall burn\u201d them (OJPS), meaning the priests. And see the next comment.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Shall be taken outside the camp. See Ibn Ezra\u2019s comment. In fact the \u201che\u201d of the literal Hebrew phrase is really impersonal\u2014he, whoever takes them, shall take them. It is therefore correct to translate this Hebrew idiom into English as do NJPS and OJPS: \u201cthey shall be taken.\u201d Their hides, flesh, and dung shall be consumed in fire. This too is an impersonal active with passive meaning. But here the impersonal actors are \u201cthey,\u201d not \u201che\u201d as in the first part of the verse. The implication is that no matter how many people assist in this process, the only one who must wash his clothes (and so forth) is \u201che who burned them\u201d (v. 28), the one who ignited the fire. He becomes unclean as soon as they are more than half aflame.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:28<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He who burned them. The switch from plural to singular emphasizes that each of the priests who performs the burning must bathe. After that he may reenter the camp. What need is there to say that he may reenter the camp after bathing? Rather, the text is saying that he must reenter the camp, immediately after bathing.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:29\u201332<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are so many of the offerings of the Day of Atonement (like the regular daily offerings) not even mentioned in this chapter, though we know from v. 29 that this chapter refers to that day? (The actual offerings, as described in orderly fashion in rabbinic literature, raise even more questions.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:29<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
This shall be to you a law for all time. The ritual that has just been described. In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall practice self-denial. Isa. 55:2 tells us, \u201cGive heed to Me, and you shall eat choice food and enjoy the richest viands.\u201d Since self-denial is the opposite of enjoyment, we understand that one meaning of self-denial is fasting. We see this also in Isa. 58:10, \u201cAnd you offer your compassion to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted creature\u201d (stating the same thing twice in parallel phrases, as was the way of the prophets). Ps. 35:13 says, \u201cI denied myself by fasting\u201d; but, since fasting is mentioned explicitly there, we cannot use that verse to prove what is meant by \u201cdenial\u201d without mention of fasting. In any case, we have a tradition that tells us the nature of the self-denial to be performed on the Day of Atonement, so there is really no need to search the Scriptures. As a general rule, however, any mention of self-denial in the terms used here\u2014literally, \u201caffliction of the soul\u201d\u2014is a reference to fasting. Neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. We do not allow the alien to work, but we may not compel him to fast.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall practice self-denial. Ibn Ezra has nicely explained the nature of this self-denial, thus stopping up the mouths of the Karaites, may their name be blotted out.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:30<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Atonement shall be made for you. Rather, \u201che\u201d\u2014the High Priest\u2014\u201cshall make atonement for you.\u201d This is why some commentators think that expiation is made as soon as the goat designated for Azazel is \u201cleft standing alive before the LORD, to make expiation with it\u201d (v. 10)\u2014that is when the High Priest \u201cshall make atonement for you.\u201d To cleanse you of all your sins. As I have explained in my comment to Exod. 34:6\u20137, \u201csin\u201d is a general term, referring both to unintentional and to deliberate violations.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
On this day. Unlike the common expression \u201con that day,\u201d which occurs over 200 times, \u201con this day\u201d occurs only seven times in the Bible (Masorah). Atonement shall be made for you. \u201cThis day\u201d shall make atonement for you, whether or not the Temple is standing and the rituals can be performed (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:31<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A sabbath of complete rest. More literally, \u201ca sabbath\u2019s sabbath.\u201d (Though the two Hebrew words vary slightly, they are essentially equivalent, being sometimes found in the reverse order to that used here.) Some explain this doubling to indicate rest for the soul as well as the body; others take it as do the English translations, as a sabbath of complete, superlative rest. And this is not implausible. It is a law for all time. Here the expression \u201ca law for all time\u201d refers to the self-denial mentioned immediately before it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A sabbath of complete rest. The Hebrew term is shabbat shabbaton, shabbat denoting the Sabbath day itself, from evening to evening, and shabbaton the nonsacred time added to the Sabbath before evening begins on Friday and after it ends on Saturday (Kimhi). How could one work on such a day, when life and death hang in the balance? (Abarbanel). It is a law for all time. The two commandments of this verse, being independent of the Temple, are self-evidently \u201ca law for all time\u201d (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest who has been anointed \u2026 shall make expiation. This expiation may be performed only by the High Priest. Since up until now the entire passage has spoken of Aaron personally, we must now be told that the High Priests who succeed him perform this same role. And ordained. The anointing of High Priests stopped in the time of Josiah, when the flask of oil used to anoint them was hidden away. From that point on, the one who was \u201cordained\u201d to wear the eight garments of the High Priest rather than the four of an ordinary priest would still perform these rituals, though he could not be anointed. In place of his father. This teaches that if the High Priest\u2019s son is capable of filling his place, he takes precedence over any other man.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The priest who has been anointed and ordained to serve as priest in place of his father. Up until now we understand the passage to be specifically about Aaron: \u201cThus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine\u201d (v. 3). Here we learn that once Aaron is gone, the service of the Day of Atonement is to be performed by the priest who is anointed in his stead.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The priest who has been anointed and ordained to serve as priest in place of his father shall make expiation. At this point the text makes a general statement, summarizing (in v. 33) all the expiation that the priest must make. He shall put on the linen vestments. The translations have correctly understood that the verb here refers to the High Priest, while the same grammatical form earlier in the verse is the impersonal active, best rendered in English by the passive \u201cwho has been anointed and ordained.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The priest who has been anointed \u2026 and ordained. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But he does not mean that before the time of Josiah there was no High Priest who was ordained by donning the eight garments but was not anointed. What Rashi is explaining is the situation where a High Priest is found unfit to perform the rituals. Another priest was always ordained as a backup by putting on the full set of eight vestments, for just this eventuality. Even though such a priest is not anointed, he still does not revert to his ordinary status when the original High Priest is once again able to fulfill his duties. At any time during the periods when the Temple stood, therefore, both kinds of High Priest might simultaneously exist. The Sages mention this in their discussion of the cities of refuge. For someone who inadvertently kills another person must flee to a city of refuge and remain there until \u201cafter the death of the High Priest.\u201d The Sages ask: Does this mean after the death of all of the High Priests, or just after the death of one of them? We thus learn that, even before Josiah hid the anointing oil, a priest who had been ordained by putting on the full set of eight garments was considered fit to perform the rituals of the Day of Atonement, despite the fact that he had not been anointed.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:33\u201317:3<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is Moses specifically instructed to tell this commandment \u201cto Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelite people\u201d (v. 2), when he did the same for all the commandments?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:33<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The innermost Shrine. Literally, \u201cthe sanctuary of sanctity\u201d; but NJPS is correct. This phrase refers to the Holy of Holies, the area inside the curtain. He shall make expiation for the priests and for all the people of the congregation. Note that the Levites are included among \u201call the people of the congregation,\u201d for they are not priests. All priests are Levites, but not all Levites are priests.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16:34<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And Moses did as the LORD had commanded him. Moses is not mentioned in the Hebrew; see OJPS. When the Day of Atonement arrived, \u201che,\u201d Aaron, did all this in the proper order. We are also told this in praise of Aaron, who did not wear the priestly garments to display his own greatness, but as one who is carrying out the King\u2019s decree.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
And Moses did as the LORD had commanded him. Rather, \u201cAnd he\u201d\u2014Aaron\u2014\u201cdid as the LORD commanded Moses\u201d (OJPS), when the Day of Atonement actually arrived.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
This shall be to you a law for all time. This has previously been stated; but the text wished to add here that it must happen once a year. And Moses did as the LORD had commanded him. Rather, \u201cAnd he\u201d\u2014Aaron\u2014\u201cdid as the LORD commanded Moses\u201d (OJPS).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
And Moses did as the LORD had commanded him. Rather, \u201cAnd he\u201d\u2014Aaron\u2014\u201cdid as the LORD had commanded Moses.\u201d He did this for the rest of his life, never going inside the curtain except on the Day of Atonement.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:2<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Speak to Aaron and his sons. Since they do the slaughtering for the Israelites.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelite people. Since this passage is a warning to present all the offerings at the Tent of Meeting, the priests are first commanded (since it is they who present the offerings) not to do so outside the camp; then the Israelites are commanded not to do so on their own. Our Sages\u2019 understanding of this passage is the correct one: The Israelites are here forbidden to eat meat, except that from sacrifices offered on the altar of the Lord. This explains the specification of \u201cox or sheep or goat\u201d (v. 3), the three kinds of animals that are offered as sacrifices. All must first be brought \u201cto the entrance of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 4), offered as sacrifices of well-being, their fat and blood burned on the altar, and only then can their flesh be legally eaten. If this procedure is not followed, \u201cthat man shall be cut off\u201d (v. 4). It would seem that ordinary slaughter for meat is prohibited first, as explained in vv. 5\u20137. Vv. 8\u20139 then go on to make clear that neither \u201ca burnt offering or a sacrifice\u201d (v. 8) may be offered elsewhere than at the Tent of Meeting (as they were during the brief historical intervals when multiple altars were permitted). At this point in history, all slaughter, whether sacred or secular, was restricted to the enclosure at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Note the distinction with Deut. 12:10\u201315, where, \u201cWhen you cross the Jordan and settle in the land\u201d (Deut. 12:10), offerings are restricted to \u201cthe place that the LORD will choose\u201d (Deut. 12:14), but \u201cwhenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in any of your settlements\u201d (Deut. 12:15). The restriction outlined in our passage would not apply once they entered the land, \u201cWhen the LORD enlarges your territory\u201d (Deut. 12:20). But here in the desert it would not be difficult for them to bring every animal to the Tent for slaughter and turn it into an offering.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelite people. As v. 8 shows us, \u201cthe strangers who reside among them\u201d are included (Gersonides). All Israel must understand the power of the blood that the High Priest sprinkles on the altar (Abarbanel). This is what the LORD has commanded. In 15:31, when He told Moses, \u201cYou shall put the Israelites on guard against their uncleanness, lest they die through their uncleanness by defiling My Tabernacle which is among them\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
An ox or sheep or goat. The text refers here to an animal that is consecrated for slaughter, \u201cto present it as an offering to the LORD\u201d (v. 4). In the camp. But outside the sacred area.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In the camp, or \u2026 outside the camp. If the verse had prohibited such slaughter only \u201cin the camp,\u201d we would presume that it was permissible anywhere outside the camp. But since \u201cthe camp\u201d pertains to the Temple, we understand that \u201coutside the camp\u201d must mean just outside the camp\u2014within a reasonable distance from Jerusalem. Just how far a distance is a \u201creasonable\u201d one we know via tradition. If one is too far away, it is quite permissible to slaughter an animal and eat it: \u201cIf the place where the LORD has chosen to establish His name is too far from you, you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you, as I have instructed you; and you may eat to your heart\u2019s content in your settlements\u201d (Deut. 12:21). Many people have claimed that it is in fact forbidden to eat meat in the exile. Of course, when Daniel (living in Babylonia) kept three weeks of mourning, he announced, \u201cI ate no tasty food, nor did any flesh or wine enter my mouth\u201d (Dan. 10:3)\u2014implying that he did eat meat at other times. But these people assume that he is referring to the \u201cflesh\u201d of fish. They are not correct, but I would rather not go on at length here to respond to them.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
In the camp, or \u2026 outside the camp. Though ordinary slaughter would be permitted inside the land, when distances were great, they were not now far away from the altar, as they might later be. This is not only the rabbinic interpretation of our passage (as I pointed out in my previous comment); it is also what fits the passage according to the straightforward sense. Rashi\u2019s comment (to v. 3) that our text refers only to slaughter for ritual purposes follows a minority opinion, recorded in the Sifra, that secular slaughter, for the purpose of consuming meat, was not in fact ever prohibited. But the interpretation that makes the text read coherently, and that in fact follows what the Sages say in most places, is the way we have explained it.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:4\u20137<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is one who slaughters an animal considered to have bloodguilt and to have \u201cshed blood\u201d (v. 4)?
\n\u2666 Is the prohibition of eating blood so that \u201cthey may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons\u201d (v. 7), as Maimonides thinks, or because \u201cthe life of the flesh is in the blood\u201d (v. 11), as Nahmanides argues? And why does each of them ignore the verses cited by the other?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He is considered as one who \u201csheds the blood of man\u201d (Gen. 9:6), whose life becomes forfeit. He has shed blood. This additional phrase teaches that the same applies to one who sprinkles such blood outside the sacred area even if the animal was slaughtered inside it.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood. As NJPS makes clear, the first occurrence of the word dam in the verse means \u201cbloodguilt\u201d and not literally \u201cblood\u201d (as OJPS translates). The man is considered to be under a death sentence imposed by heaven on account of the blood he spilled when he sacrificed an animal outside the sacred enclosure.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. God said after the Flood, of all the animals but man (to paraphrase the words of Zeph. 1:17), \u201cI have made their blood like water and their flesh like dung\u201d; that is, He said, \u201cEvery creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all these\u201d (Gen. 9:3). But if one slaughters an animal outside the camp, he is considered to be someone who has spilled blood, as at the time of creation, when eating meat was prohibited.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. As we know from Exod. 24:5, where the young men \u201coffered burnt offerings and sacrificed bulls as offerings of well-being to the LORD,\u201d before Moses set up the Tabernacle, offerings could be made anywhere (Hizkuni). Bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. Just as it was before the Flood, when humans were forbidden to kill animals for food (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The sacrifices which they have been making. NJPS translates correctly. It is not, as OJPS might be taken to imply, that they can make sacrifices \u201cin the open field\u201d and then \u201cbring them unto the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The sacrifices which they have been making in the open. Which some of them have been making to the \u201cgoat-demons\u201d (v. 7) and not to the God of heaven.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices which they have been making in the open. The purpose of this regulation is so that the Israelites will \u201coffer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons after whom they stray\u201d (v. 7).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
In the open. More literally, \u201cin the open field\u201d (OJPS), but it simply means \u201coutside the area designated for divine offerings\u201d (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The goat-demons. The Hebrew says simply \u201cthe goats.\u201d But the translations have understood the implication correctly. The word is used similarly in Isa. 13:21, \u201cThere shall ostriches make their home, and there shall satyrs dance.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
No more. This teaches us that the Israelites had in fact been doing so in Egypt. The goat-demons. Such a demon is called a sa\u2019ir\u2014literally just \u201cgoat\u201d\u2014because the body of anyone who spots one of them suffers a seizure, mista\u2019er\u2014as if to say, \u201che goes goat.\u201d But more likely they are so called because the crazy people who do spot them see them in the form of a goat. After whom they stray. For anyone who seeks out and believes in these goat-demons is straying from his God, thinking that there is someone who can do good or evil other than the Lord, awesome and glorious.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
That they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons. See the comments of Rashi (taken from the Sifra) and Ibn Ezra. In his comment to \u201cno more,\u201d Ibn Ezra has already alluded to the truth, as I explained in my comment to 16:8, where you will also find an explanation why these \u201cgoat-demons\u201d are so called. The word for demons, shedim, derives from the fact that the dwelling place of such beings is in places (like the wilderness) that are devastated, shadud. They are primarily found only in marginal locations, such as the far north, which is ravaged by cold.
\nKnow that from the beginning of creation, when man, animal, vegetable, and mineral were created by the uniting (through divine power) of the four elements of fire, air, earth, and water into coarse, material existence perceptible through the five senses, there was another kind of being formed from a combination of just the two elements of fire and air. The body of this sort of being cannot be perceived by the senses\u2014just as the soul of an animal is so insubstantial that it cannot be perceived by the senses. The bodies of these creatures too are so light and insubstantial that they can fly through fire and air. Just as creatures that are composed of all four elements exist because of their combination and cease to exist when the matter reverts to its original elements, so too these creatures composed of only two elements exist when they are joined and are as if dead when they are separated. This is why the Sages said: Demons resemble the angels in three ways, and they resemble human beings in three ways. Like the angels, they have wings, they fly, and they know what is to happen in the future (or at least they hear what is to happen). Like human beings, they eat and drink, they reproduce, and they die. As I have said, the reason that they die is that (like all beings compounded of more than one element) eventually the elements of which they are compounded decompose, and the reason they can fly is because of the lightness of the elements of which they are compounded. Similarly, birds are able to fly and to glide because they have a great deal of fire and air in their makeup and a relatively small amount of earth and water; demons, which entirely lack the heavier two elements, can fly endlessly without fatigue. \u201cEating\u201d (for a demon) simply means absorbing moisture and other vapors, like the fire that \u201clicked up the water that was in the trench\u201d (1 Kings 18:38) around Elijah\u2019s offering on Mount Carmel. This is the point of the incense offerings that necromancers make to the demons. Since the element of fire within them dries up that of air, it must be replenished, just as food restores that which has been depleted from a human body. As far as hearing what is to happen in the future, this comes from their flying about in the air, where they hear this from the rulers of the various constellations, who dwell in the air. These are the \u201cprinces of the quiver,\u201d and this is how all winged creatures can foretell the future, as experienced diviners know. With God\u2019s help, I will explain more about this in its proper place. But neither the demons nor the birds know what is to happen far ahead and in the distant future. Experience shows that such diviners do in fact know from the demons only what is decreed to happen in the near future. Thus Onkelos translates \u201cThey sacrificed to demons, no-gods\u201d (Deut. 32:17) as \u201cthey sacrificed to demons of whom there is no need.\u201d For they can neither prevent future damage nor confer benefit, nor can they make known the far future so that one might protect oneself. Since the basic meaning of the Hebrew word elo\u2019ah is \u201cpower,\u201d the word translated by NJPS in the Deuteronomy verse as \u201cno-gods\u201d does in fact essentially mean \u201cpowerless.\u201d For elohim is as much as to say el hem, \u201cthey are power.\u201d But demons \u201ccan do no harm; nor is it in them to do any good\u201d (Jer. 10:5).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
That they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons. That is, I am not saying that I need their sacrifices; I am merely trying to prevent them from getting accustomed to offering them to idols (Bekhor Shor). They are so called because they appear as goats to those who believe in them (Kimhi). They appear as goats because Capricorn, the goat, is in the house of Saturn, the planet associated with the demons. Aquarius is in the house of Saturn as well, but the demons are produced from black bile, associated with Capricorn, not from blood, associated with Aquarius. The phrase \u201cno more\u201d makes clear that the point of this verse is not to prohibit bringing sacrifices to the goat-demons, but to explain why sacrifices must be made only in the proper location. But the underlying reason for restricting sacrifice to a single location is to emphasize that God is one (Gersonides). This shall be to them a law for all time. The \u201claw for all time\u201d is \u201cthat they offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons\u201d (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:8\u20139<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since Deut. 12:20\u201321 permit slaughtering meat for food anywhere in the territory God grants the Israelites, how can v. 7 insist that bringing such an animal to the Tent of Meeting is \u201ca law for all time, throughout the ages\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why do vv. 3\u20137 apply only to \u201canyone of the house of Israel,\u201d while vv. 8\u201315 apply both to \u201canyone of the house of Israel\u201d and to \u201cthe strangers who reside among them\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Offers a burnt offering. Since such \u201coffering\u201d has already been prohibited in v. 3, our phrase must really be understood literally: Anyone who \u201cputs an offering up\u201d on the altar outside the sacred area is as culpable as someone who slaughters it outside the sacred area. If one man slaughtered it and another man burnt it on an altar, both are culpable.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice. The \u201cstrangers\u201d are not mentioned previously because vv. 3\u20137 refer to sacrifices that only Israelites are commanded to make. But now it is made clear that Israelites may not permit strangers to make idolatrous offerings in the land of Israel.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice. On an altar. For there is no such thing as an offering to God that is not made on an altar; Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Balaam all built altars when they wanted to make an offering to God (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
That person shall be cut off. His lineage is cut off, and his days are cut short.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:10\u201311<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the prohibition against eating blood (vv. 10 and 12) refer to the individual who does so as a \u201csoul,\u201d while the prohibition against slaughtering an animal away from the Tent refers to him as a \u201cman\u201d? (See OJPS, for NJPS does not translate these words consistently.)
\n\u2666 What is the connection between \u201cblood\u201d and \u201clife\u201d (the same word elsewhere translated as \u201csoul\u201d or \u201cperson\u201d)? We are told that the life is in the blood, that the blood is in the life, and that the life is the blood. (And see Deut. 12:23 as well.) How are all these differences to be explained?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Any blood. Since v. 11 goes on to refer to this as \u201cthe blood \u2026 that effects expiation,\u201d we might understand v. 10 to refer only to the blood of sacrificial animals; it therefore uses the expression \u201cany blood.\u201d I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood. The word panai, \u201cMy face,\u201d can also be read as p\u2019nai, \u201cMy free time.\u201d I will turn aside from My own free time, when I would be dealing with My own affairs, to deal with him.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood. This commandment too obviously applies to everyone, \u201cFor the life of the flesh is in the blood\u201d (v. 11). And it is indeed true that life is dependent on the heart\u2019s blood.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For the life of the flesh of all creatures is dependent on the blood that is in them. I have therefore permitted the use of animal blood as expiation for human life\u2014let one life make expiation for another.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is the blood, as life, that effects expiation. The blood effects expiation not \u201cas life\u201d but \u201cby reason of the life\u201d that is in it (OJPS). It is a matter of \u201clife for life\u201d (Exod. 21:23). Some interpret our phrase to mean \u201cIt is blood that effects expiation for your lives,\u201d but there would be no point in saying this, since we have just been told that the blood is to be used \u201cfor making expiation for your lives.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar. The blood, like the fat, belongs to God; it is ours to use only for expiation. If we are asked why the blood of animals and birds that are not slaughtered for sacrifice is also forbidden, we can deflect this question by pointing out that God wished to keep us away from all blood to prevent us from using the blood of sacrifices by mistake. For permissible fat is distinguishable from forbidden fat, but the blood of sacrifices is indistinguishable from any other blood. According to Maimonides in Guide 3:46, even though the Chaldeans found blood disgusting and considered it a source of uncleanness, those who wished to keep company with the demons would nonetheless consume it\u2014in order to be able to foretell the future. The intent of the Torah is to completely destroy such foolish concepts by enacting the exact opposite of their thinking. It therefore not only forbade the consumption of blood but also selected blood for use in sprinkling to achieve ritual cleanness and in making expiation on the altar. For this reason God announces, \u201cI will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood\u201d (v. 10), using the same language as for the one who gives his offspring to Molech. Consumption of blood is therefore treated as if it were a kind of idolatry, for this expression is not used with any other commandment than that.
\nThis explanation of Maimonides is quite coherent, but the text itself does not expressly teach us this, saying rather that \u201cthe life of all flesh\u2014its blood is its life\u201d (v. 14); that \u201cthe life of the flesh is in the blood\u201d (our verse) and warning, \u201cMake sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh\u201d (Deut. 12:23). So it is better to explain the reason for this prohibition as follows: God created all the creatures here below for the needs of humanity, for man is the only one of them who recognizes his Creator. Even so, at first humans were permitted to eat only plant food, not animals: \u201cSee, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food\u201d (Gen. 1:29). After the Flood, when the animals were saved through the merits of Noah and he brought some of them as an offering, the slaughter of animals was permitted: \u201cEvery creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all these\u201d (Gen. 9:3). For they were kept alive for the benefit of man. More specifically, their bodies were permitted to be used for the needs and also the pleasures of mankind, and their \u201csoul\u201d or \u201clife\u201d (the blood) was permitted to be used for expiation by offering them before the Blessed One\u2014but not that it should be consumed. For a being with a soul should not consume another soul, since all souls belong to God, since all lives are His; the life of the human being and the life of the animal are both His. \u201cFor in respect of the fate of man and the fate of beast, they have one and the same fate: as the one dies so dies the other, and both have the same lifebreath\u201d (Eccles. 3:19). In Aristotelian terms (as explained by scholars of his thought), a clear, bright flash of light emanated from the Active Intellect, out of which came the spark of the animal soul. It is therefore at least in some sense a complete soul, giving animals the ability to flee from danger, to pursue pleasure, and a certain limited kind of emotion and intellect (e.g., a dog loves its master, a dove recognizes its home). We know further that what one eats is absorbed in the body and unites with it. Potentially, then, eating flesh will thicken and coarsen a person, drawing him nearer to the nature of the animal soul in what he has eaten. For blood does not require digestion as do other animal foods, which are altered in the process, so one\u2019s soul would become entwined with the blood of the animal. As Ecclesiastes goes on to ask, \u201cWho knows if a man\u2019s lifebreath does rise upward and if a beast\u2019s breath does sink down into the earth?\u201d (Eccles. 3:21). It is not good to mix the life that is cut off with the life that continues to exist. Rather, it should serve as expiation on the altar to win acceptance for them before the Lord.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar. Maimonides thinks the command not to slaughter outside the camp and the prohibition of eating blood are related to the worship of demons; Nahmanides denies it. But in fact both have erred, thinking the two are a single subject. These are two separate commandments. Maimonides gives the correct reason for the first, and Nahmanides for the second (Abarbanel). There is no material substance so immaterial as the vapor of blood, which contains the \u201csoul,\u201d that is, the life force. Because it is to some extent \u201csoul,\u201d it can make expiation for a human soul on the altar. But it is forbidden (see v. 7) to offer it to demons, for it provides them with nourishment, though they do not have the power to take it for themselves (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:12\u201314<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
No person among you. \u201cNo soul of you\u201d (OJPS), no life among you. Adults are responsible to make sure their children do not do so.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Therefore I say to the Israelite people: No person among you shall partake of blood. For the blood is the life, and one life should not consume another. But I have taken pity on human beings and permitted them to replace their lives on the altar with animal life as expiation.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I say to the Israelite people. The expression of \u201csaying\u201d to the Israelites actually occurs only three other times in the Bible: here, v. 14, and in Exod. 3:14, and Exod. 6:6 (Masorah). Rather, I \u201csaid\u201d to the Israelite people, in 3:17 (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Hunts down an animal or a bird. The verse refers only to hunting; how do I know that the same rule applies to, e.g., geese and chickens, which are \u201chunted down\u201d long before being slaughtered? The Hebrew text uses the word \u201chunt\u201d a second time to include this second category. But why use the term \u201chunt\u201d at all? To say that one must not treat eating meat as something casual. Meat must be \u201chunted.\u201d That may be eaten. Literally, \u201cthat is eaten\u201d; but the translations understand correctly.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Cover it with earth. For then it will no longer be edible.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down an animal or a bird that may be eaten. The words \u201cthat may be eaten\u201d refer to an animal as well\u2014an animal such as a deer or a gazelle. We learn that we may not permit even a non-Israelite to eat a pig, a horse, or a bird of prey in our land. He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. Since blood may not be eaten, and cannot be seen poured out sacrificially anywhere but on the altar of the Lord, it may be that we are commanded to cover up the blood with earth so that no one will see it and think\u2014it being the blood of a clean animal\u2014that it was an idolatrous offering. In my comment to Deut. 12:25 I will explain the hidden meaning behind this verse.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For such blood should not be offered on the altar. Only two kinds of birds are ever offered (and neither of them is ritually slaughtered as an animal is). Most kinds of animals are ritually slaughtered and their blood is used for expiation, so there is no need to cover it up. The text did not bother to describe covering up the blood of animals that may not be used for sacrifice, since there was no such thing in the wilderness. Even afterward, the text is concerned to issue commands only with regard to the more common occurrence.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down an animal or a bird. The Torah teaches us proper behavior\u2014one should not simply buy meat in the market, but should only consume it when one has gone through the entire process of obtaining it (Bekhor Shor). He shall pour out its blood. Since the suet used for sacrifices is not mentioned here, it is clear that birds (and these kinds of nonsacrificial animals) do not have suet, but simply natural, ordinary fat (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Its blood is its life. Its blood is the moral equivalent of its life, for its life depends on it. For the life of all flesh is its blood. \u201cIts\u201d blood means (as the gender of the suffix shows) the flesh\u2019s blood.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Its blood is its life. The blood and the life are inseparable. It is well known that the arteries which come from the left side of the heart are half connected to the blood and half to the breath, for blood fuels life as olive oil does the light of a lamp. Therefore I say to the Israelite people. Rather, \u201cI said\u201d (OJPS). For what follows has already been stated.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Its blood is its life. Rashi\u2019s comment is incorrect. The Hebrew has a preposition that the English translations omit: \u201cIts blood is in its nefesh\u201d\u2014here meaning not \u201clife\u201d but simply \u201cperson,\u201d as it does in such verses as \u201cHis feet were subjected to fetters; an iron collar was put on his person\u201d (Ps. 105:18); \u201cThe total number of persons that were of Jacob\u2019s issue came to seventy\u201d (Exod. 1:5); \u201che shall not go in where there is a dead person\u201d (Num. 6:6). For one\u2019s body possesses a nefesh and may be called by that name. In my view, the text in our passage is saying three things about blood, all pointing in the same direction. First, \u201cthe life of the flesh is in the blood\u201d (v. 11); next, here, the reverse, that \u201cits blood is in its life\u201d\u2014demonstrating that, like wine mixed with water, the \u201clife\u201d (that is, the nefesh) and the blood are in each other. Finally, the life of all flesh is its blood: They are inseparably united in one flesh. One cannot find blood without life or life without blood. For the spirit that comes from the heart is the hyle, the basic substance, of all spirit, and from it comes the nourishment that makes the blood, which generates and sustains the material form of everything that possesses a body. As with matter and form, you will never find the one without the other. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off. Our Sages have interpreted the three mentions of \u201ccutting off\u201d with regard to blood (in this verse, in v. 10, and in 7:27) as prohibiting the consumption of three different kinds of blood: expiatory blood, the blood of animals slaughtered for meat, and the blood that should be covered up. That explains the repetition of \u201ccutting off.\u201d But the different phrasing involving \u201cblood\u201d and \u201clife\u201d is as I have explained.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:15\u201318:2<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
What has died or has been torn by beasts. \u201cWhat has died\u201d refers to the carcass of a clean bird, which does not acquire uncleanness until the moment it is swallowed (as we learn from this very verse); one does not become unclean simply by touching it. Since everything \u201ctorn by beasts\u201d is also something that has died, the reference to eating something \u201ctorn by beasts\u201d must be included here for the specific purpose of being interpreted as it is in fact interpreted in rabbinic literature: One might think the carcass of an unclean bird also makes one unclean as it is swallowed. The text therefore adds a reference to flesh that is \u201ctorn,\u201d for the same word is also the technical term for meat from an otherwise clean bird that may not be eaten because it is found to be diseased. Since this rule does not apply to unclean species of birds, we understand that only clean birds are referred to here.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Any person \u2026 who eats what has died. Any person, even a child, becomes unclean by doing this.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any person, whether citizen or stranger, who eats what has died or has been torn by beasts. Having mentioned animals and birds that were slaughtered, the text now, for the sake of completeness, adds those that have died naturally or been killed by other animals (or by hunters). If one eats such meat deliberately, he is whipped; if by mistake, he brings a sin offering. Deut. 14:21 says, \u201cYou shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger within your gates to eat,\u201d but our verse refers not to a genuine stranger but to a \u201cstranger\u201d who lives in the Jewish community\u2014that is, to the \u201cstranger who resides among you\u201d (16:29). We may not permit such a person to eat what has died, but must give it to an actual stranger for him to eat\u2014outside of the town.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
What has died or has been torn. \u201cTorn\u201d is really the technical term for an animal that is found to be diseased after being slaughtered. But our verse does not say \u201cdied or torn,\u201d as the translations would have it, but \u201cdied and torn\u201d\u2014diseased meat (though it cannot be consumed) does not make one unclean if it is properly slaughtered (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 17:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he does not wash his clothes and bathe his body. He is punished for not immersing himself by being cut off, and for not washing his clothes by being whipped. He shall bear his guilt. If he eats sacred flesh or enters the sanctuary while unclean in this way, he is culpable just as he would be with any other kind of uncleanness. (There is no \u201cguilt\u201d for simply being unclean.)<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
He shall bear his guilt. If he subsequently eats sacred foods or enters the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall bear his guilt. He shall bear it constantly. Or: He, the Lord, will forgive his \u201ciniquity\u201d (OJPS) by means of the punishment that He brings upon him.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Having mentioned the \u201cgoat-demons\u201d with which the Israelites were involved in Egypt, the text continues with this chapter (which mentions Egyptian practices in v. 3) and then turns to the sexual practices associated with the previous inhabitants of Canaan (see vv. 24\u201328).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I the LORD am your God. I am He who said at Sinai, \u201cI the LORD am your God\u201d (Exod. 20:2), and you accepted My sovereignty there. Now, accept My decrees. R. Judah the Patriarch says: It was revealed and known before Him that they would snap the bounds of the laws against sexual immorality in Ezra\u2019s time. He therefore announced to them, \u201cI the Lord am your God. Know who is issuing these decrees against you\u2014One who can judge and punish, and also One who can be relied on to give the proper reward.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I the LORD am your God. \u201cI the Lord will be your God\u201d only on condition that you follow these rules.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people. There is no separate mention of the priests here, because these prohibitions are not unique to them, but include all of the people equally. And say to them: I the LORD am your God. The implication is the same as in the introduction to the Ten Commandments. It is as if He is saying to Moses, \u201cTell them these things in My name.\u201d Compare \u201cSpeak to the whole Israelite community and say to them: You shall be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy\u201d (19:2). It may perhaps also be that, since \u201cwhenever Moses went in before the LORD to speak with Him, he would leave the veil off until he came out\u201d (Exod. 34:34), that \u201cwhen he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded\u201d (also Exod. 34:34), it was unnecessary for him to say \u201cThus said the Lord\u201d\u2014for it was obvious to them from the radiance that \u201cthe spirit of the Lord was speaking through him, His message was on his tongue,\u201d and he was not speaking as himself. In many places in Deuteronomy, Moses channels God\u2019s own words in exactly this fashion: \u201cIf, then, you obey the commandments that I enjoin upon you this day, loving the LORD your God and serving Him with all your heart and soul, I will grant the rain for your land in season, the early rain and the late. You shall gather in your new grain and wine and oil\u2014I will also provide grass in the fields for your cattle\u2014and thus you shall eat your fill\u201d (Deut. 11:13\u201315). Obviously it was not Moses himself who granted the rain and provided the grass, but the Lord (bless Him). Similarly, Moses says, \u201cI led you through the wilderness forty years; the clothes on your back did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet; you had no bread to eat and no wine or other intoxicant to drink\u2014that you might know that I the LORD am your God\u201d (Deut. 29:4\u20135). With regard to God\u2019s instructing the Israelites \u201cto love the LORD your God\u201d (in the third person), see my comment to Exod. 24:1.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:3\u20135<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are these prohibitions, unlike all the other commandments in the Torah, provided with a kind of introduction (v. 3) attributing such practices to the Egyptians and the Canaanites?
\n\u2666 Why the redundancy of vv. 4 and 5?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan. This tells us that the practices of the Egyptians and the Canaanites were worse than those of any other nation on earth, and that the part of Egypt where the Israelites dwelt was the worst of them all. To which I am taking you. This tells us that those nations which were conquered by the Israelites were the worst of the Canaanites. Nor shall you follow their laws. What did \u201cpractices\u201d leave unexpressed here? Not the \u201claws\u201d of the Canaanites, but their way of life (\u1e25ukkim)\u2014those things that were ingrained (me\u1e25okkakim) in them, like going to plays and bullfights. But R. Meir says: It is referring to those practices that the Sages describe as \u201cthe ways of the Amorites.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The practices of the land of Egypt. That is, their rules; contrast v. 4. Nor shall you follow their laws. If one accustoms himself to follow such practices, they eventually become a rule of his life.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The practices of the land of Egypt. In Ibn Ezra\u2019s opinion, this is a reference to the worship of the \u201cgoat-demons\u201d; see his comment to 17:7. Or of the land of Canaan. This, he says, refers to \u201cthose abhorrent things done by the people who were in the land before you\u201d (as indeed v. 27 confirms). According to the Sifra, however, the Egyptians were steeped in just the same perversions\u2014including homosexuality and bestiality\u2014and this is the truth. With regard to Canaan, 1 Kings 14:24 tells us that \u201cthere were also male prostitutes in the land\u201d all along. Of Egypt, Ezek. 16:26 tells us, \u201cYou played the whore with your neighbors, the big-fleshed Egyptians,\u201d and see further Ezek. 23:19\u201320, \u201cBut she whored still more, remembering how in her youth she had played the whore in the land of Egypt; she lusted for concubinage with them, whose flesh was like that of asses.\u201d \u201cFlesh\u201d is of course a euphemism, as in 15:2.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you. If you do so, what point is there in My exchanging them for you? (Bekhor Shor). Given that the practices of Egypt and Canaan are equated here, how is it that the Canaanites lasted 47 years longer on their land than did the Egyptians? For the Israelites did not come to Canaan for 40 years after the Egyptians were drowned in the sea, and Canaan was settled 7 years before Egypt (see Num. 13:22). The Canaanites earned an extension as a reward for having buried Abraham in the cave of Machpelah (Hizkuni). Ordinarily a person can be expected to follow the practices of the land where he was born or (if he has moved) the land where he now lives (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
My rules alone shall you observe. This refers to those things described in the Torah as \u201crulings\u201d (as this word might be better translated)\u2014things that, if they had not been commanded, ought to have been. And faithfully follow My laws. These are the things that are simply \u201ccarved in stone\u201d (as the etymology of the Hebrew word suggests)\u2014things that are simply \u201cdecrees of the King.\u201d The evil inclination objects to them by saying, \u201cWhy must we observe them?\u201d and the other nations of the world object the same way. Some examples are: the prohibitions against eating pork and wearing cloth combining wool and linen, and the ritual of the red heifer. That is why it says, I the LORD am your God. \u201cMy decrees obligate you, and you are not permitted to withdraw from them, but must continue to \u2018follow\u2019 them and not depart from them. You must not say, \u2018I have learned all the wisdom of Israel; now let me go and learn the wisdom of the other nations.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
My rules alone shall you observe. Those recorded in the Covenant Code, Exodus 21\u201323\u2014not those of the Egyptians. I the LORD am your God. I will be your God if you observe My rules.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
My rules alone shall you observe. See Rashi\u2019s comment, which is drawn from the Sifra. But the straightforward sense is as translated: \u201cMy\u201d rules, as issued in the Covenant Code (\u201cThese are the rules that you shall set before them,\u201d Exod. 21:1) and throughout the Torah.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall keep My laws and My rules. This apparent repetition extends the obligation to all of the details not explicitly mentioned in the passage that follows. Another reading: the repetition shows that both \u201cdoing\u201d and \u201ckeeping\u201d (see OJPS to vv. 4\u20135) apply to both the laws and the rules, though \u201ckeeping\u201d is applied in v. 4 only to the laws and \u201cdoing\u201d to the rules. By the pursuit of which man shall live. In the World to Come. For it cannot refer to this world, in which after all everyone must die. I am the LORD. I can be relied on to give you your reward.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
By the pursuit of which man shall live. More literally, \u201cwhich if a man do, he shall live by them\u201d (OJPS). But if he does not do them\u2014\u201csuch persons shall be cut off from their people\u201d (v. 29).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall keep My laws and My rules. The repetition clarifies that these laws and rules give life in both worlds to those who follow them. For if one understands the mystery behind them, the Eternally Living One will give him life and he will never die. This, as I have explained, is why these laws are introduced by stating, \u201cI the LORD am your God.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live. See the previous comment. The purpose of the rules is so that people can live peacefully together, both as individuals and as nations, without killing or harming one another. As Ezekiel says multiple times, \u201cI gave them My laws and taught them My rules, by the pursuit of which a man shall live\u201d (Ezek. 20:11, and see Ezek. 20:13 and 20:21). (Ezek. 20:12 refers to the Sabbath as \u201ca sign between Me and them,\u201d suggesting that the rules by which one is to \u201clive\u201d are those regulating dealings between people.) In Nehemiah too, similarly, \u201cthey sinned against Your rules, by following which a man shall live\u201d (Neh. 9:29). Our Sages, however, understood the phrase \u201cby the pursuit of which man shall live\u201d to mean that one should live by the rules but not die by them; the rules are superseded when life is in danger. Moreover, \u201cliving\u201d by them is taken midrashically as a reference to the life of the World to Come, since the \u201clife\u201d of this world always ends in death. This of course applies to the divine \u201claws\u201d as well as to the \u201crules\u201d regulating conduct among people.
\nKnow that the \u201clife\u201d one gains through observing the commandments matches the preparation one puts into them. One who observes the commandments not for their own sake but for the sake of reward will certainly live (in this world) for many years with wealth, possessions, and honor. As Prov. 3:16 says of Torah, \u201cIn her left hand are riches and honor\u201d\u2014even those who approach Torah offhandedly will gain them. But those who perform the commandments for die sake of the World to Come\u2014that is, out of fear of the Lord\u2014will earn, by their proper intention, an escape from the sentences handed out to the wicked, and \u201ctheir souls shall abide in goodness\u201d (Ps. 25:13). Still more, those who perform the commandments not out of fear but out of love, as they ought to be performed, will not only have a good life in this world\u2014\u201cYour threshing shall overtake the vintage, and your vintage shall overtake the sowing; you shall eat your fill of bread and dwell securely in your land\u201d (26:5)\u2014but will also gain full credit for the life of the World to Come. Beyond even this, those who abandon the things of this world, paying them no mind, as if they had no physical bodies, but (like Elijah) directing all of their thoughts only to their Creator, shall, by the cleaving of their souls to the Honored Name, live forever, body and soul together. We see this from the story of Elijah; we know it from the stories about him in our tradition; and we read about it also in the rabbinic tales of Enoch and the others who will be resurrected in the End of Days. That is why the text uses such various phrases as \u201cto live long\u201d (Exod. 20:12), \u201cto live\u201d (Deut. 16:20), \u201cto fare well and have a long life\u201d (Deut. 22:7). All the different kinds of \u201clife\u201d appropriate to each person are thus included.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
By the pursuit of which man shall live. For the lives of the gentiles, who do not follow these laws, are shortened, since the property owner kills the thief or the husband kills the man who has slept with his wife (Bekhor Shor). For they are the avenues to perfection of the soul, which is eternal life; and of course they provide benefits as well here in our physical existence, as is true of many of the commandments (Gersonides). I am the LORD. This expression occurs at the end of a verse exactly 20 times in Leviticus. The expression \u201cI the LORD am your God\u201d (e.g., v. 2) occurs at the end of a verse exactly 18 times, and all within chs. 18\u201326 (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:6<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since the specific prohibitions are subsequently given, what is the point of v. 6?
\n\u2666 And why does that verse, unlike the subsequent verses, end with the statement, \u201cI am the LORD\u201d?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
None of you. Male or female. The expression is plural. I am the LORD. I can be relied on to give you your reward.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
None of you. The verse begins with the same words as (e.g.) 17:3, but our verse does not say \u201cNone of you of the house of Israel.\u201d We therefore must also not permit strangers to perform any of these acts in our land, so that the land does not become defiled. Shall come near. This is a euphemism for intercourse. Similarly we find \u201cdo not go near a woman\u201d (Exod. 19:15) and \u201cI came near to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son\u201d (Isa. 8:3). Anyone of his own flesh. This is an inclusive term referring to all the forbidden sexual practices, which are subsequently specified individually. According to Aaron b. Joseph, however, the phrase \u201cone\u2019s own flesh\u201d is to be understood as referring to emission of semen outside intercourse. To uncover nakedness. The Hebrew word implies something indecent that is exposed and must be covered up. I am the LORD. For the Lord loves one who keeps himself apart to serve Him and to heed His word. The instruction to avoid sexual intercourse before the giving of the Torah at Sinai is evidence of this, as is the story of Adam; this is the hidden mystery of humanity. But since the impulses of human beings are like those of the animals, it was not possible to forbid a man from approaching all females. Those that are forbidden are those that are around him at all times. In my commentary to the weekly portion of Ki Tetze I will expose to you a deep, dark mystery. But anyone who defiles himself, God\u2019s holy name stays far from him. That is why God announces here \u201cI am the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
None of you shall come near anyone of his own flesh to uncover nakedness. The reason for the incest prohibitions requires explanation. Maimonides says in Guide 3:49 that the intent is to minimize copulation and to denigrate it; a minimum amount of it should suffice. The particular female in-laws who are forbidden are those who are most likely to be around, as are those of a man\u2019s own female relatives who are mentioned. It would ordinarily be easy for him to be secluded with them; Maimonides explains all of the prohibitions in this way. See similarly Ibn Ezra\u2019s comment to \u201cI am the LORD\u201d in this verse. But this explanation is quite weak. Can the text be forbidding a man to have intercourse with certain women who might be around simply in order to minimize sex, when at the same time it permits him to marry hundreds or thousands of other women at a time? If that is the purpose, why not let him marry his own daughter\u2014as indeed, according to Jewish law, non-Jews are permitted to do\u2014but her alone? Or two sisters, like our patriarch Jacob? Indeed, there would seem to be no marriage more fitting than for a man to marry his daughter to his older son, settling his inheritance on them and letting them be fruitful and multiply within his own house. For \u201cThe Creator of heaven \u2026 formed the earth and made it \u2026 He did not create it a waste, but formed it for habitation\u201d (Isa. 45:18). In fact, we have no tradition explaining these prohibitions. But logic dictates that it must have to do with one of the most profound mysteries of creation, attached to die soul\u2014that is, the mystery of impregnation, to which we have already alluded.
\nKnow that in the Torah copulation is, in fact, something to be kept apart and considered repugnant, except in the context of propagation of the species. Any kind of sex that could not produce children is forbidden by the Torah, as well as any kind where the child is not likely to live or be healthy. That is the reason for the prohibition of having sex with one\u2019s own \u201cflesh,\u201d as in \u201cYou shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother\u2019s sister or of your father\u2019s sister, for that is laying bare one\u2019s own flesh\u201d (20:19). This word \u201cflesh,\u201d sh\u2019ar, is related to the word for \u201cremnant\u201d: \u201cAnd those who remain [nish\u2019ar] in Zion and are left in Jerusalem\u201d (Isa. 4:3). The same word is found in v. 17, \u201cDo not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; nor shall you marry her son\u2019s daughter or her daughter\u2019s daughter and uncover her nakedness: they are sha\u2019arah; it is depravity.\u201d That is to say, they are to be \u201cleft out\u201d of the marriageable category, for they will not lead to successful pregnancy. Such an act is simply the fruit of depraved desire.
\nNote, however, that the sexual prohibitions fall into the category of \u201claws\u201d as opposed to that of (sensible) \u201crules.\u201d They are simply \u201ca decree of the king.\u201d Such a decree is thought up by the king because he is the most intelligent about how to administer his kingdom. It is he alone who understands the necessity and utility of such a commandment, and he does not tell anyone of the people his reasons except for the wisest of his advisers.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
None of you shall come near anyone of his own flesh to uncover nakedness. If this were not prohibited, then between grandfather, father, and brother, no female would ever leave her family home a virgin (Bekhor Shor). The sexual sins fall into three categories: those that show disrespect to the person himself, those that show disrespect to the person\u2019s father, and those that show disrespect to his mother. In combination, vv. 6\u20137 begin this section by summarizing all three (Abarbanel). The mixing of two relatives concentrates their qualities. When Amram took to wife his father\u2019s sister Jochebed, the result was Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. But ordinarily what results is simply a concentration of the lust for sheer sexual pleasure (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:7\u20139<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What is the point of mentioning \u201cyour father\u2019s nakedness\u201d in v. 7?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your father\u2019s nakedness. This means \u201cyour father\u2019s wife.\u201d\u2014Or could it perhaps mean what it literally says?\u2014No, for 20:11 plainly says, \u201cIf a man lies with his father\u2019s wife, it is the nakedness of his father that he has uncovered.\u201d The same applies here. The nakedness of your mother. The effect of this phrase is to include one\u2019s mother in the rule even if she is not married to one\u2019s father.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your father\u2019s nakedness. The prohibitions begin with the father, who naturally precedes the son, and proceed to prohibit anyone closely related to either the father or the mother. The nakedness of your mother. One\u2019s mother herself is of course the first of these prohibitions. Next comes \u201cyour father\u2019s wife\u201d (v. 8) who is not your mother, and then one\u2019s sister, whether daughter of father or mother.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Your father\u2019s nakedness, that is, the nakedness of your mother. See Rashi\u2019s comment here and to v. 14, all quite true according to a correct understanding of the context. But B. Sanh. 54a raises the possibility that \u201cyour father\u2019s nakedness\u201d (here) and \u201cthe nakedness of your father\u2019s brother\u201d (v. 14) refers literally to homosexual relations with one\u2019s father or uncle. I am quite amazed by this suggestion. If this opinion is correct, why would the text not also prohibit \u201cthe nakedness of\u201d one\u2019s son and brother in the verses (vv. 15\u201316) prohibiting their wives? Perhaps the Torah was more concerned to give the older generation this kind of respect? But no\u2014each and every verse in this section is a single prohibition. You will not find two prohibitions in one verse anywhere in the passage. (The various women of v. 9 are all one\u2019s sister, just as those of v. 10 are all one\u2019s daughter.) In my opinion, a straightforward understanding of the verse requires that the word translated \u201cand\u201d by OJPS be rather translated as did NJPS: \u201cthat is.\u201d Notice that v. 14 does not have this misleading word. She is your mother. The emphasis, in context, is that by having sex with her you have done two wrongs, baring the nakedness of your father as well as of your mother.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The nakedness of your father\u2019s wife. She remains \u201cyour father\u2019s wife\u201d even after his death.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not uncover the nakedness of your father\u2019s wife; it is the nakedness of your father. This follows our interpretation of v. 7\u2014\u201cthe nakedness of your father\u201d is \u201cthe nakedness of your father\u2019s wife.\u201d These are not two separate things.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your father\u2019s daughter. Even if he fathered her by rape. Whether born into the household or outside. Even if she is born \u201coutside\u201d the marriage because a court has instructed your father to divorce his wife, she having been found to be someone to whom he may not legally be married\u2014either a woman herself born of a prohibited relationship or a descendant of the Gibeonites.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Whether born into the household or outside. The sister born \u201coutside\u201d refers to a sister born to one\u2019s father of an unmarried woman. That seems to me to be the straightforward sense of the verse.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Whether born into the household. Rather, \u201cinto the house,\u201d meaning born legally into the house of Israel after betrothal and marriage. Or outside. That is, outside of Jewish custom. But others understand the Hebrew word translated as \u201cborn\u201d to refer not literally to birth but to upbringing, as with the children of Machir son of Manasseh, who Gen. 50:23 tells us metaphorically were \u201cborn\u201d upon Joseph\u2019s knees. In this case, \u201cin the household\u201d would refer to a sister who grew up with you in the same house, and \u201coutside\u201d to a biological sister who grew up in some other place than with you in your father\u2019s house\u2014even in some other country.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Whether born into the household or outside. Rashi\u2019s comment is incorrect. It would follow from what he says that one\u2019s sister born of one of the relationships forbidden in this chapter would not be included in the prohibition! But intercourse with every kind of sister is punishable by excision, except for a sister born of a slave, a Samaritan, or an idolater. I am quite surprised at Rashi, since what I have just stated is made perfectly clear on B. Yev. 23a. The straightforward sense of the phrase is: \u201cwhether born to your father inside his marriage or outside of it.\u201d One might have thought that the honor of the sibling relationship was restricted to a sister born of a marriage rather than a promiscuous affair; the text was for that reason forced to include both specifically.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:10\u201315<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the text mention \u201cthe nakedness of your son\u2019s daughter\u201d and \u201cof your daughter\u2019s daughter\u201d (v. 10), leaving \u201cthe nakedness of your own daughter\u201d to be derived exegetically?
\n\u2666 Why is \u201cyour sister\u201d mentioned in v. 11 after already having been discussed in v. 9?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The nakedness \u2026 of your daughter\u2019s daughter. Again, the reference must be to a daughter fathered by rape, since his daughter of his wife, and the daughter\u2019s daughter, are prohibited by v. 17 (whether fathered by oneself or by another man). \u201cYour own daughter\u201d fathered by rape is not mentioned here, but if the daughter of one\u2019s son or daughter is prohibited, one\u2019s own daughter is obviously prohibited as well. Since, however, it is technically not done to derive a law by a fortiori reasoning of this kind, the rule is derived (on B. Yev. 3a) by midrashic comparison of the language our verse shares with v. 17.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your son\u2019s daughter. The text continues down the generations.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The nakedness of your father\u2019s wife\u2019s daughter. This teaches that one is not culpable for \u201cuncovering the nakedness\u201d of a sister born of a slave or a non-Jew. She must be born of a woman who can legally become one\u2019s father\u2019s \u201cwife.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The nakedness of your father\u2019s wife\u2019s daughter. Some say that this refers to one\u2019s full sister, daughter of one\u2019s father and one\u2019s mother, which would mean that sleeping with her would violate two commandments, this one and that of v. 9. Others think our verse is simply rhetorical, re-emphasizing the commandment of v. 9. The Sadducees, however, take this to refer to one\u2019s sister who is not the daughter of one\u2019s mother. They understand born into your father\u2019s household to mean \u201craised in your father\u2019s household\u201d (see my comment to v. 9). The situation they are thinking of is that where the father marries a woman who has a young daughter. They consider this to have been the situation of Tamar, who is called the \u201csister\u201d of David\u2019s son Absalom, basing themselves on the fact that she tells David\u2019s other son, Amnon, \u201cPlease, speak to the king; he will not refuse me to you\u201d (2 Sam. 13:13). This would imply that she was not David\u2019s biological daughter nor raised by him, but simply the grown daughter of his wife Maacah, Absalom\u2019s mother. Since those who transmitted our tradition have said that it is permissible to marry the daughter of one\u2019s father\u2019s wife who is not one\u2019s sister, there is no need to respond to those who have made up other rulings out of whole cloth. But of course it is possible that our verse refers to the daughter of a woman who was raped by one\u2019s father.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The nakedness of your father\u2019s wife\u2019s daughter, who was born into your father\u2019s household. Rather, \u201cbegotten of thy father\u201d (OJPS). One might have understood the clause \u201cwhether born into the household or outside\u201d of v. 9 to apply only to \u201cyour mother\u2019s daughter\u201d (which immediately precedes it), in which case \u201cyour father\u2019s daughter\u201d of that verse might be presumed to refer only to one\u2019s father\u2019s daughter begotten within marriage. Since one\u2019s father might have sired a daughter outside of marriage and not even know about it, one could think that this relationship is not forbidden\u2014as indeed it is not, for non-Jews. Our verse therefore specifies that both alike are forbidden. The straightforward sense of the text is just as the Sages have explained it on B. Yev. 22a: if a man has intercourse with his \u201cfather\u2019s wife\u2019s daughter\u201d\u2014referring to a wife of his father who is not his mother\u2014he violates two prohibitions, both the one against \u201cyour father\u2019s wife\u2019s daughter\u201d and the more general one against \u201cyour sister.\u201d With some prohibitions\u2014for example, the prohibition against eating things that \u201cswarm\u201d\u2014the text repeats the prohibition many times so that a single action is punishable as a multiple violation.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:12<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Flesh. OJPS gives the sense here, but NJPS translates more literally. The Hebrew word is a synonym of the word used for flesh in the sense of \u201cmeat.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do not uncover the nakedness of your father\u2019s brother. And what exactly is meant by \u201cuncovering his nakedness\u201d?\u2026 Do not approach his wife.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
She is your aunt. As the wife of your father\u2019s brother, she is considered to be your aunt, just as if she were your father\u2019s sister. Notice that Hanamel is referred to both as the son of Jeremiah\u2019s uncle (Jer. 32:7) and as himself being (as it were) Jeremiah\u2019s uncle (Jer. 32:12); any close relative of the uncle is his moral equivalent. In any case, what can those who try to rely solely on Torah alone for the commandments do? The text does not forbid one to sleep with the wife of one\u2019s mother\u2019s brother, nor with one\u2019s father\u2019s mother, nor with one\u2019s mother\u2019s mother. We therefore do need the tradition to tell us these things. It may also be possible that one\u2019s mother\u2019s brother\u2019s wife is not mentioned because it would simply be obvious from the prohibition of one\u2019s father\u2019s brother\u2019s wife. (And she is included in the prohibition given in 20:20.) As far as one\u2019s grandmothers, perhaps the text did not prohibit marrying them because it was concerned merely to mention the kinds of acts that do in fact commonly occur.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your son\u2019s wife. Again, the reference is to one who can legitimately be his wife\u2014not one whom he has raped, a slave, or a non-Jew.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Your daughter-in-law. In Biblical Hebrew the kallah (which now means \u201cbride\u201d) is referred to as such with regard to her father-in-law and mother-in-law even after the wedding (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:16\u201319<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:16<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The nakedness of your brother\u2019s wife. See my comment to Deut. 25:5 for more on this topic.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The nakedness of a woman and her daughter. This applies only when one is legally married to the first of them before sleeping with the other, as we see from the continuation nor shall you marry. This is made explicit where the punishment matching this prohibition is given: \u201cIf a man marries a woman and her mother\u201d (20:14). But if one rapes a woman, it is permissible to marry her daughter. They are kindred. Etymologically, the word translated \u201ckindred\u201d means that they are the same \u201cflesh.\u201d It is depravity. More literally, as Onkelos translates, \u201cIt is sinful counsel.\u201d It is your evil inclination that has counseled you to sin in this way.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter. Those who ask why the text does not prohibit sleeping with one\u2019s own daughter find their refutation here. One is prohibited to sleep with a woman and her daughter, whether or not she is one\u2019s own daughter. Once he has slept with the mother, the daughter is forbidden to him. They are kindred. That is, they are one\u2019s own \u201cflesh\u201d; this is simply the feminine form of the masculine noun used in v. 12 (see my comment to that verse).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
It is depravity. Onkelos translates, \u201cIt is sinful counsel,\u201d and Rashi explains that one\u2019s evil inclination has (as it were) \u201ccounseled\u201d one to do so. But I can make no sense out of this. The same applies to all the other sexual violations and, for that matter, all other transgressions as well. The particular word used in our verse, zimmah, is related to a root that refers specifically to thought, as in \u201cyou shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow\u201d (Deut. 19:19). But proper thoughts are called not zimmah but mezimmah: \u201cI know that You can do everything, That nothing You propose is impossible for You\u201d (Job 42:2). Our word, zimmah, is indeed used for lustful, improper thoughts: \u201cIf my heart was ravished by the wife of my neighbor, and I lay in wait at his door, may my wife grind for another, may others kneel over her! For that would have been debauchery\u201d (Job 31:9\u201311). (See also Ezek. 23:29 and Jer. 13:27.) In my opinion the word is specifically used in our verse with reference to a man who is having intercourse with one woman while thinking about another, her daughter or granddaughter\u2014since, after all, they are related and resemble one another. The same word is used in 20:14 in the reverse formulation of the rule: \u201cIf a man marries a woman and her mother, it is depravity.\u201d This is why the text does not simply say, \u201cDo not uncover the nakedness of your wife\u2019s daughter\u201d or \u201cyour wife\u2019s mother.\u201d Our passage first prohibits sexual relations with one\u2019s own relatives, \u201cfor their nakedness is yours\u201d (v. 10), and then applies the same rule to one\u2019s wife, making clear that they are to be \u201cleft out\u201d (not \u201ckindred,\u201d as NJPS translates; see the second-to-last paragraph of my comment to v. 6). Intercourse with one\u2019s wife\u2019s relatives is considered \u201cdepravity\u201d for the reasons I have explained. Ezek. 22:11, \u201cin their depravity they have defiled their own daughters-in-law,\u201d is similar. The woman is \u201cdefiled\u201d\u2014literally, \u201cmade unclean\u201d\u2014with regard to her husband, because even when she is with him she will be thinking about his father, because of their close relationship and resemblance. Note that bestiality is condemned (v. 23) as tebel, \u201cperversion,\u201d a word derived from balal, \u201cconfusion\u201d (for it is an act that mixes up human seed with animal seed); similarly, when \u201ca man lies with his daughter-in-law\u201d (20:12), the psychological confusion of father and son is described as tebel.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It is depravity. More precisely, it is a coupling born solely out of the sinful imagination (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
As a rival to her sister. More literally, \u201cto be a rival to her.\u201d But you may also not marry the two of them simultaneously. In the other\u2019s lifetime. This teaches that even if he has divorced his wife, he may not marry her sister as long as the first wife lives.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
As a rival. A noun from the same root, ordinarily connoting enmity, is found in 1 Sam. 1:6, where Peninnah is called Hannah\u2019s \u201crival.\u201d But this is actually the technical term for two women who are married to the same man.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
As a rival. Compare 1 Sam. 1:6. In 20:10\u201321, where the punishments for these violations are listed, the case of two sisters is for some reason not specifically mentioned (nor is that of one\u2019s granddaughter). To her sister. It has been mistakenly argued that Rachel and Leah were not sisters. V. 27 describes the sexual relations listed here as \u201cabhorrent things,\u201d and Jacob (they argue) would certainly not do anything abhorrent! But this is not a convincing argument. Others think that \u201call those abhorrent things\u201d is a general statement that cannot be specifically applied to every single prohibition listed in the chapter (though it certainly applies to most of them). You will find out my opinion on this in my comment to Deut. 31:16.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not marry a woman as a rival to her sister. With a mother and daughter, the physical connection is so near that they are the same \u201cflesh,\u201d and one is prohibited to sleep with both of them under any circumstances. But this does not apply to sisters. Here, it is only when both sisters are living that the prohibition applies. For sisters should not be rivals, but should love one another.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
As a rival to her sister. More literally, \u201cto be bound to her sister,\u201d as David\u2019s concubines were \u201cbound in living widowhood until the day they died\u201d (2 Sam. 20:3). For each one constitutes the reason why he cannot have intercourse with the other (Hizkuni). In the other\u2019s lifetime. I therefore understand that all the other prohibitions, where this is not said, are unconditional (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:19<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
During her period of uncleanness. This too is considered a sexual violation.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness. As I have explained in my comment to v. 6, the Torah intends copulation for propagation of the species. I noted in my comment to 12:2 that an embryo is largely or entirely created from the woman\u2019s blood, and this is impossible with menstrual blood, which is a toxic substance\u2014it will kill an animal that drinks or eats it. A woman simply cannot get pregnant with a lot of menstrual blood in her womb, or if she does get pregnant from other blood, \u201cnourishment\u201d from the menstrual blood will kill the embryo. The physicians have told us that even if an embryo is created and nourished from healthy blood, if there is a bit of menstrual blood mixed in, it will ferment the blood and create various kinds of boils and blisters on the child. Our Sages say that if a bit of it remains in the child, it will make him a leper. For all of these reasons, the Torah found it proper to distance a man from sex with a menstruating woman. Moreover, we are told of one of the wonders worked in nature \u201cby Him whose understanding is perfect\u201d (Job 37:16), and experience has proved it true: If a woman who is at the beginning of her menstrual flow stares at a mirror, red drops that look like drops of blood will appear in it. For the harmful natural forces within her at that time breed an evil in the air that clings to the mirror. She is like a basilisk, which kills with its glance. How much the more so is she harmful to one who has bodily contact with her, and on whom her thoughts are concentrated. That is why the text decrees that \u201cher impurity is communicated to him\u201d (15:24), and that is why our text refers, as it literally does, to \u201cthe impurity of her uncleanness\u201d (compare OJPS). For her impurity is contagious. Ezekiel refers to \u201cthe uncleanness of a menstruous woman\u201d (Ezek. 36:17), for ritual uncleanness is always mentioned in connection with menstruation\u2014just as with an unclean animal or a leper, whose uncleanness is a physical part of them. This may be the logic behind \u201che has laid bare her flow and she has exposed her blood flow\u201d (20:18)\u2014this harmful flow is to be kept concealed, not revealed so that one might draw harmful waters from it. The holy seed is certainly forbidden from contact with it as long as she is ritually impure. But once she immerses herself, she is cleansed both physically and psychologically, and is completely pure.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness. This refers not merely to menstruation but also to a woman who has given birth. In both cases, this prohibition extends not merely for the necessary waiting period, but until she has immersed herself\u2014for her cleanness depends on this (Gersonides). Just as either of two sisters would ordinarily be permitted, so too this woman (if she is one\u2019s wife) is ordinarily permitted, just not at this specific time (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:20\u201321<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What does offering up one\u2019s offspring to Molech (v. 21) have to do with the sexual crimes that are the subject of this chapter?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:20<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your neighbor\u2019s wife. This is specified in language that excludes the \u201cbeautiful captive\u201d of Deut. 21:10\u201314. But others think that the captive (who was presumably another man\u2019s wife before being captured) would be included in this provision if the Deuteronomy text had not specifically excluded her.
\nSome people who think with their members rather than their minds have erred in the interpretation of a critical word in this verse, which the English translations omit: \u201cDo not have carnal relations with your neighbor\u2019s wife\u201d (so far, NJPS) \u201cfor seed\u201d that is, for offspring. (As you will see, in v. 21 both translations do include this word, with this meaning.) We know that sex can be divided into three different aspects: first, for reproduction (not out of appetite); second, for health reasons, to release the overflow of the body; and third, as a result of sexual appetite comparable to that of the animals. So these misinterpreters take our verse to apply only if \u201cyour neighbor\u2019s wife\u201d is one who is capable of bearing children. But the correct sense of the verse is that one cannot sleep with her even for the sake of children, let alone for the less creditable reasons. This is, in fact, the most severe prohibition possible. Defile yourself with her. Anyone who touches someone else\u2019s wife becomes unclean forever; he can never be cleansed.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not have carnal relations with your neighbor\u2019s wife. See Ibn Ezra\u2019s comment about the omitted phrase \u201cfor seed,\u201d meaning \u201cfor offspring.\u201d It could of course mean that the reason for the prohibition is that she would not know who the father of the child is, which might inadvertently lead both father and child to commit great abominations. But note that the phrase is not included in 20:10, where the punishment for the act is given, for he is culpable there if he becomes aroused, even if he does not ejaculate. But \u201cseed\u201d is specifically mentioned in Num. 5:13, since that chapter deals with a jealous husband, and offspring are at the root of such jealousy. The same phrase is used in 19:20, regarding relations with a slave woman, since the issue there is that he might father a child by her. But the real issue in that verse is that the slave woman \u201chas been designated for another man,\u201d and in my opinion that is the issue here as well\u2014the woman is another man\u2019s wife. As Prov. 6:29 tells us of one who sleeps with his fellow\u2019s wife, \u201cNone who [so much as] touches her will go unpunished.\u201d In my opinion the phrase \u201cfor seed\u201d is intended to make clear that what is prohibited is sexual intercourse\u2014not hugging and kissing. It would not be enough to say \u201cyou shall not lie with your neighbor\u2019s wife\u201d (compare OJPS), which might imply simply lying down. As the translations recognize, \u201cfor seed\u201d refers to lying down that is \u201ccarnal\u201d in nature. Note further that it is sexual relations that are at issue here, not \u201cuncovering the nakedness,\u201d which is the problem with close relatives and menstruants. (Our Sages interpret the phrase \u201cfor seed\u201d to mean that an impotent man does not violate this prohibition even if he lies down with his neighbor\u2019s wife.)<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not have carnal relations with your neighbor\u2019s wife. We have a Mosaic tradition from Sinai that the Holy One never permits the child of such a union to live without his true status being known (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do not allow. Rather, do not \u201cgive\u201d any of your offspring. To be offered up. Rather, \u201cto be passed through\u201d (see the next comment). To Molech. This was the name of a particular kind of idol. It was worshiped by handing over one\u2019s child (\u201cgiving\u201d it) to the priests of Molech, who would light two great bonfires and make the child walk between the two fires.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your offspring. In context, this is a prohibition against intercourse with a non-Jewish woman who will offer one\u2019s offspring up to Molech. (The \u201cbeautiful captive\u201d has no bearing on this question, for she becomes a Jew.) To be offered up. Rather, \u201cto burn\u201d\u2014for this was the method of Molech worship. But some say that the child was \u201cpassed through\u201d a fire (this being the literal meaning of the verb); some of the children would live, and some would die. Since the verse does not specifically mention fire, others explain the verb to mean that one \u201ctransfers\u201d the child from the teaching of God to the religion of Molech. Molech. This is the name of one particular image. Our Sages, however, understand the word as a general term referring to any god whom one makes into his melekh, his king. It may possibly have been another name for \u201cMilcom the abomination of the Ammonites\u201d (1 Kings 11:5). Do not profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You have profaned the God who is called by your name, \u201cGod of Israel,\u201d if you give of the holy seed to Molech.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not allow any of your offspring to be offered up to Molech. This is the name of a particular idol. In fact, our text says \u201cto the Molech,\u201d for this idol was known to them in Egypt. Ibn Ezra\u2019s suggestion that this is another name for Milcom seems likely; see 1 Kings 11:7. This idol was of course also known to them. Rashi\u2019s explanation that the child was handed over to idolatrous priests, however, is not correct, though he explains it the same way on B. Sanh. 64a. But this does not seem to be what the language of the Talmud actually says. How could one be put to death for an action performed by someone else? The text itself explicitly refers to a father \u201cwho [himself] passes his son or daughter through the fire\u201d (Deut. 18:10). What actually happens is this: The father personally hands over the child to the priests for the sake of their abominable worship. As 20:3 has it, \u201che gave of his offspring to Molech\u201d just as in the temple service one takes turtledoves or pigeons and \u201cgives them to the priest\u201d (15:14). Perhaps the priests then perform some sort of presentation or elevation before Molech. They then return the child to its father, who passes it through the fire. As Ezek. 23:37\u201339 makes clear, the children are not simply moved through a flame, but slaughtered by being passed through the fire again and again until they are completely burnt. For simply \u201cpassing\u201d something through a fire once refers to an action that does not lead to its being totally consumed: \u201cany article that can withstand fire\u2014these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean\u201d (Num. 31:23). Kings Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:6) and Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chron. 28:3) both performed this ritual, and King Josiah tried to put a stop to it: \u201cHe also defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, so that no one might consign his son or daughter to the fire of Molech\u201d (2 Kings 23:10). But the Sepharvites who \u201cburned their children as offerings to Adrammelech and Anamelech, the gods of Sepharvaim\u201d (2 Kings 17:31) were doing something different\u2014not passing their children through the fire, but burning them completely as burnt offerings, just as was done for Baal. As Jeremiah was told to announce in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, \u201cThey have put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal\u201d (Jer. 19:5). In fact, God tells Jeremiah elsewhere, \u201cthey built the shrines of Baal which are in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, where they offered up their sons and daughters to Molech\u201d (Jer. 32:35). From this latter verse, however, it appears that Baal worship and Molech worship were the same thing, and of course both are not proper names so much as nouns that refer to lordship: baal, \u201cmaster,\u201d and molekh, comparable to melekh, \u201cking.\u201d (The Jeremiah verses literally refer to \u201cthe Baal,\u201d just as our verse refers to \u201cthe Molech.\u201d So they are not referring to, e.g., Baal-peor or Baal-zebub.) The essence of such worship is not the eventual burning, but the passing through the fire. So I think the gods of Sepharvaim were also \u201cthe Molech.\u201d Notice that their names are \u201cAdrammelech\u201d and \u201cAnamelech.\u201d Admittedly, these gods were worshiped by burning, and Molech simply by \u201cpassing\u201d through the fire, but the result is the same. Our Sages reported (based on 2 Kings 16:3) that Hezekiah\u2019s father, King Ahaz, tried to pass him through the fire in this way\u2014but his mother smeared him with the fat of a salamander (especially created by God to save him), which protected him from the flames. It follows that, ordinarily, passing the child through the fire would result in its death. The straightforward sense of this procedure, however, has been explained as being a form of divination, as in Deut. 18:10; 2 Kings 17:17, and 2 Chron. 33:6. It would appear that, though the essence of this procedure was worship of Molech, passing the children through the fire somehow let the prophets associated with this foolish worship enter a dream state in which they had what they thought were magical visions. We find a reference to Molech in 20:3 and immediately afterward in 20:6 one to \u201cany person that turns to ghosts and familiar spirits\u201d; and Deut. 18:10 is followed by a whole passage about soothsaying. And do not profane the name of your God. According to 20:3, one who \u201cgave of his offspring to Molech\u201d has \u201cdefiled My sanctuary and profaned My holy name,\u201d perhaps because \u201cI the LORD who sanctify you am holy\u201d (21:8), entailing that \u201cyou shall sanctify yourselves and be holy\u201d (11:44). Serious transgressions are described as profaning God\u2019s name: \u201cFather and son go to the same girl, and thereby profane My holy name\u201d (Amos 2:7). A person who would serve Molech in this way and subsequently bring an offering to the sanctuary would be an abomination, for all idolatry creates defilement (see, e.g., 19:31; Ezek. 36:18).
\nBut according to the True interpretation, Israel is the holy seed, born in the house of the Lord\u2014\u201ctruly they have committed adultery with their fetishes, and have even offered to them as food the children they bore to Me\u201d (Ezek. 23:37)\u2014so anyone who offers his child as a sacrifice to Molech would \u201cprofane his offspring among his kin, for I the LORD have sanctified him\u201d (21:14). That is why God says twice \u201cI will set My face against that man\u201d (20:3, 5). The enlightened person will understand.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not allow any of your offspring to be offered up to Molech. \u201cAny\u201d of your offspring, because the worshipers of Molech would not offer all of their children to him\u2014just as the gentiles turn some of their sons into monks and priests, who will not carry on their line, but teach others a trade and marry them off (Bekhor Shor). Passing one\u2019s child through the fire would appear to be a form of making a covenant with this particular idol. I think the intent of the procedure must be to worship Mars, which rules over fire (Gersonides). This was one of \u201cthe practices \u2026 of the land of Canaan\u201d (v. 3) and, like others of the practices mentioned here, constituted a waste of one\u2019s \u201cseed,\u201d one\u2019s offspring (Abarbanel). Since one offers only animal sacrifices to God, offering a child to Molech would be giving him greater stature than the Holy One, God forbid (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:22\u201323<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not lie with a male \u2026 Do not have carnal relations with any beast. The point of this is obvious. Such intercourse is abominable; it has nothing to do with the propagation of the species, for human-animal intercourse is not fertile. Ibn Ezra comments, based on the story of Lot\u2019s daughters, that v. 22 equally forbids the passive partner and the active partner, but if this is so, why must v. 23 specifically add let no woman lend herself to a beast to mate with it? Women are included in all the prohibitions in the Torah, so \u201cdo not have carnal relations with any beast\u201d ought to apply to them as well. But when Lot\u2019s elder daughter tells her sister, \u201cI lay with Father last night\u201d (Gen. 19:34), the point is that she had to take the active part with him in order to elicit seed from him. For it is well known that semen is created either by movement of the entire body, as when foam is created in the mouths of horses when they run, or in the veins around the genitals, gathering there due to the repeated motion until it comes forth. If Lot\u2019s daughters had not taken the active role, no seed would have come forth from him, for in his drunkenness he was as still as a stone.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:22<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman. Saadia outlines eight different categories of sexual immorality. The most severe is bestiality, for animals are of a different species entirely. Next is homosexuality, which puts an entire sex off limits. After that comes sex with one\u2019s father\u2019s wife and the rest of that category, who are forbidden at all times. There is no need for me to explain this at length; it would be pointless, for the text says about all of them, \u201cAll who do any of those abhorrent things\u2014such persons shall be cut off from their people\u201d (v. 29). As far as \u201clying with a male\u201d is concerned, we learn from Lot\u2019s daughter, who tells her sister, \u201cI lay with Father last night\u201d (Gen. 19:34), that it makes no difference whether one \u201clays\u201d or \u201cis laid\u201d\u2014both partners are equally responsible. Rabbenu Hananel (of blessed memory) says that it is possible for a male to develop in his body something like female genitalia, but this is certainly not naturally possible. Others think that the text refers to one who has intercourse with a hermaphrodite. The whole interpretive problem results from the fact that the Hebrew literally refers to sexual \u201crelations\u201d as with a woman, using the plural of that word, which one Sage insists must be a reference to two different kinds of intercourse. In my opinion, the meaning of the verse is quite straightforward: a man is not to have sex with another man. The great intellects too have declared this a deed that should be punishable by death. The verse has simply used respectable language\u2014\u201cto lie with,\u201d as in v. 6 \u201cto come near.\u201d Since man was created to be the active one and woman the passive one, the text simply explains that God\u2019s words are not to be overturned. There is a kind of sex that is performed so that both partners will ejaculate, which is enough to explain why the verse seems to mention more than one kind of \u201crelations.\u201d It would not be seemly to say more on this topic. It is an abhorrence. In a quite literal sense, this is something that is naturally abhorred by a holy person.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:23\u201325<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the message of vv. 24\u201325 repeated in vv. 27\u201328, and again in v. 30?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is perversion. The translations understand this unusual Hebrew word correctly. Another reading: the same root sometimes refers to mixing, in this case the mixing of human seed with that of an animal.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not have carnal relations. More literally, \u201cdo not give your emission\u201d (see my comment to 15:16). But it may also refer to the kind of \u201clying down\u201d that results in ejaculation. With any beast. The reference is to a female animal. Defile yourself. The same phrase is used for sex with another man\u2019s wife (v. 20). Let no woman lend herself to a beast. A male one. To mate with it. Rather, \u201cfor it to mate with her.\u201d The Hebrew verb carries the sense of \u201cgetting down on all fours.\u201d It is perversion. The philologists say that this Hebrew word tebel is from the root \u05d1\u05dc\u05dc (the t being simply a prefix letter). Among the words related to it would be mabul, the destructive Flood that occurred in Noah\u2019s time, and also \u201cthe LORD confounded [balal] the speech of the whole earth\u201d (Gen. 11:9). The general rule is that the text has prohibited sex with anyone (or anything) with whom one could not produce children\u2014whether legally or at all. For species cannot interbreed, and the text likens all of these forbidden combinations to the repugnant mingling of two species.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not have carnal relations with any beast. For man is on a higher level than the other animals (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:24<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not defile yourselves. The verb is a Hitpael, not a Niphal, as the dagesh in the \u05de demonstrates. This is a general statement, making clear that any of the immoral sexual acts mentioned in this chapter defile a person. The nations that I am casting out before you. I am casting them out of that pure land. (\u201cCasting out\u201d need not be taken literally. It applies to those who would be killed in the conquest of the land just as to those who would be driven out.)<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves. They began simply by \u201ccoming near\u201d (v. 6), which led them into all of the defiling actions listed in this chapter (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:25<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The land spewed out its inhabitants. What a man \u201cspews out\u201d he finds disgusting, and it is gone for good. Some wonder how God could punish the Canaanites for doing these things without having ever commanded them not to do so\u2014to which others reply that all the descendants of Noah were indeed commanded not to do them.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Thus the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity. The text specifies that immoral sexual activities, unlike other sins, are so severe as to make the land itself unclean to the degree that it vomits out those who engage in them. It is true that these prohibitions apply to one\u2019s body, no matter what land it is in. But the mystery behind this matter is indicated in Deut. 32:8\u20139, \u201cWhen the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, He fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel\u2019s numbers. For the LORD\u2019S portion is His people, Jacob His own allotment.\u201d Though God created all things, each and every nation is connected to one of the planets or constellations, as is known to the astrologers. As the Israelites are warned, \u201cwhen you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing down to them or serving them. These the LORD your God allotted to other peoples everywhere under heaven\u201d (Deut. 4:19). Above each of these stars is the angel on high who has been given authority over it and thus over its nation, as when the \u201cman dressed in linen\u201d tells Daniel about \u201cthe prince of Persia\u201d and \u201cthe prince of Greece\u201d (Dan. 10:20). Now the Honored Name is God of all gods and Lord of all lords, but the land of Israel is the center of all human habitation and, as such, it is the special inheritance of the Lord, and He appointed none of the angels as its governor. This is why Israel is designated \u201cMy treasured possession among all the peoples,\u201d though \u201cindeed, all the earth is Mine\u201d (Exod. 19:5). Therefore God commanded them \u201cthat you may be My people and I may be your God\u201d (Jer. 11:4) and that they have nothing to do at all with other gods. He sanctified the people that dwells in His land with the commandments against sexual immorality and the other commandments, putting them under His direct authority. \u201cYou shall faithfully observe all My laws and all My regulations, lest the land to which I bring you to settle in spew you out \u2026 You shall possess their land, for I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I the LORD am your God who has set you apart from other peoples\u201d (20:22, 24). He has separated us from the rest of the nations, over whom He appointed various angels and other gods, and given us His land, so that He\u2014bless Him!\u2014would be our God and we would be particularly devoted to His Name. Naturally the land that is God\u2019s own possession could not tolerate those who perform idolatry and sexual immorality (which is why Molech is mentioned in our passage). Both are included in \u201cDo not defile yourselves in any of those ways, for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves\u201d (v. 24). And the land spewed out its inhabitants. See similarly ch. 20. But outside the land of Israel\u2014though all the world belongs to God\u2014the ritual purity of the earth is not complete, due to its rule by God\u2019s underlings, whom the peoples of those lands mistakenly worship. For \u201cHe is to be called \u2018God of all the Earth\u2019 \u201d (Isa. 54:5). Eventually, \u201cthe LORD will punish the host of heaven in heaven\u201d by removing their power and destroying the astrological framework, after which He will punish \u201cthe kings of the earth on earth\u201d (Isa. 24:21). This is the \u201csentence decreed by the Watchers\u201d in Dan. 4:14. Note that once God has registered the transgressions of the Canaanites and decreed their fate, it is as if the land has already \u201cspewed\u201d them out. Or perhaps it is the upper world that has already spewed them out: \u201ctheir protection has departed from them\u201d (Num. 14:9).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:26\u201329<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:26<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
But you must keep My laws. Those that I have just told you, that such-and-such women shall be forbidden to you. And My rules. More precisely, \u201cMy rulings\u201d\u2014for I will command you to issue legal rulings against one who violates any of these laws. You must not do any of those abhorrent things. The purpose of the repetition here is to include in these commandments the stranger who resides among you. If he is to reside in the land of Israel, he must follow these rules just the same as a citizen of the country. If you have a brain, you will be able to understand that when Jacob (in his day) married two sisters in Haran, or when (later) Amram, in Egypt, married his aunt (see Exod. 6:20), they did not defile themselves by these marriages.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:27<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All those abhorrent things. Both you and your children must understand this, and keep these rules so that the land remains pure and does not \u201cspew you out for defiling it\u201d (v. 28). The abbreviated Hebrew word for \u201cthose\u201d in this phrase means just the same as the ordinary word\u2014despite Saadia\u2019s opinion to the contrary.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:28<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
So let not the land spew you out. The image is that of a prince who is fed something that disagrees with him. It does not remain in his stomach\u2014he vomits it forth. The land of Israel, similarly, cannot \u201ckeep down\u201d those who transgress in these ways. Onkelos translates, \u201clet not the land empty itself of you.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
As it spewed out. The root of the verb is \u05e7\u05d0\u05d4 (see Jer. 25:27), which means that the form here is masculine, though \u201cland\u201d is ordinarily a feminine word in Hebrew (but see Gen. 13:6 and Isa. 9:18, where it is also used with masculine verbs). Or perhaps it comes from \u05e7\u05d9\u05d0, in which case the verb is feminine after all: \u201cas it is going to spew out the nation that came before you.\u201d Ordinarily this construction requires a pronoun, but this is not always the case.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Let not the land spew you out for defiling it. I received this comment on the verse from my father, of blessed memory: It does not mean \u201clet the land not spew you out,\u201d but \u201cthe land will not spew you out, as it did the nations that came before you\u201d; rather, \u201cAll who do any of those abhorrent things\u2014such persons shall be cut off\u201d (v. 29). For it is right that Jews should receive a worse punishment for such acts than did those nations (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:29<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Such persons. Literally, \u201cthe souls that do them\u201d (OJPS). The point is to include both the male partner and the female partner.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Such persons shall be cut off. If they do them publicly, you must put them to death. If they do them in secret, I will cut them off.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Such persons shall be cut off from their people. See Rashi\u2019s comment to 17:9. But our verse literally says, \u201csuch souls.\u201d In fact, \u201ccutting off\u201d in the Torah is expressed in three different ways: (1) \u201cthat man shall be cut off\u201d; (2) \u201csuch souls shall be cut off from before Me\u201d; and (3) \u201cthat soul shall be cut off\u2014his guilt is within him.\u201d The Sifra explains that we learn what \u201ccutting off\u201d means from what it says with regard to one who does not practice self-denial or who does any work on the Day of Atonement: \u201cI will cause that person to perish from among his people\u201d (23:30).
\nNow if a good person whose merits largely outweigh his transgressions should suddenly be overcome by appetite and eat forbidden blood or fat, his days are cut short and he dies before reaching old age\u2014that is, the age of 60. But his \u201csoul\u201d is not cut off; he has a place in the world of souls befitting his good deeds. Moreover, he also has a place in the World to Come, that is, the world after the resurrection of the dead. Of such people it is written, \u201cthat man shall be cut off.\u201d But if, in fact, with such a severe sin his transgressions would outweigh his merits, then punishment affects that sinning soul after it is separated from the body\u2014it is cut off from the life of the world of souls: \u201csuch souls shall be cut off from before Me.\u201d Their bodies, however, are not necessarily \u201ccut off,\u201d and they sometimes live to a ripe old age: \u201csometimes a good man perishes in spite of his goodness, and sometimes a wicked one endures in spite of his wickedness\u201d (Eccles. 7:15). But when \u201cthat soul shall be cut off\u2014his guilt is within him\u201d (as in Num. 15:31), both body and soul are cut off. The Hebrew of that verse repeats the verb \u201ccut off\u201d twice, indicating to our Sages that he is cut off both from this world and from the World to Come. As Job 36:14 has it, \u201cTheir soul dies in youth and their life expires among the depraved\u201d\u2014it will not be resurrected and has no share in the World to Come. This double cutting off is found only in connection with idolatry and blasphemy; this is someone who has \u201creviled the LORD\u201d (Num. 15:30). Our Sages, however, exegetically add (on B. Shevu. 13a) those who deny the existence of God and those who are completely wicked: \u201cTheir worms shall not die, nor their fire be quenched\u201d (Isa. 66:24). These are the sinners who are listed on B. Sanh. 90a. The punishment of having one\u2019s line expire does not apply except where the text specifically states \u201cthey shall die childless\u201d (20:20\u201321), though it may apply to the other sexual sins by analogy. But we have no reason to think it applies to the other sins for which one is cut off, such as eating blood or fat. Ibn Ezra, in his comment to \u201cI will cause that person to perish from among his people\u201d (23:30), says that this is not the same as cutting off, but declines to explain what he means. This wise man would seem to think that one who \u201cperishes\u201d perishes utterly, but one who is \u201ccut off\u201d is effaced only temporarily\u2014but God does not take away his soul.
\nYou should now be enlightened enough, through your knowledge of cutting off, to understand that one should indeed have great confidence in the continued existence of the soul after death and in reward in the world of souls. By saying that a soul \u201cshall be cut off from before Me,\u201d the Holy One teaches that there are other souls that continue to exist before Him by means of the upper radiance. But if \u201chis guilt is within him,\u201d it is that guilt that cuts him off. For \u201cthe lifebreath of man is the lamp of the LORD\u201d (Prov. 20:27), breathed into our nostrils by the mouth of the One on high, \u201cthe breath of Shaddai\u201d (Job 33:4): \u201cThe LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth, and He blew into his nostrils the breath of life\u201d (Gen. 2:7). The soul is not a compound substance, making it subject to decomposition, but properly exists forever, like the separate intellects. There was therefore no need for the text to tell us that the soul would continue to exist by means of our observance of the commandments, only that it would be cut off from its intrinsic existence through transgression. That is why the Torah refers to it as being \u201ccut off,\u201d as a branch is cut off from the tree through which it is rooted. As I have already explained in my comment to Exod. 6:3, both the threats and the promises in the Torah are carried out by means of hidden miracles. The Torah therefore warns that one\u2019s soul might be cut off\u2014which requires miraculous intervention\u2014and does not bother to promise its continued existence, for that is natural and expected.
\nThere are in fact 36 different sins for which one is cut off, many of them having to do with forbidden copulation, and 16 different sexual sins that are capital crimes. But none of the sins connected with eating are punishable by death. For the Torah considers sexual immorality disgusting, as indicated in our passage and many other places. Our Sages always mention sexual immorality in between idolatry and the shedding of blood, always in that order; as even Nebuchadnezzar and Balaam admitted, \u201cThe God of these people hates depravity.\u201d There is a great mystery involved in this that is part of the mystery of creation. Maimonides says in Guide 3:41 that these acts are forbidden because sexual desire is so intense, and actions with such great negative consequences must be deterred by severe punishment. And this too is true.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 18:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall keep My charge. \u201cYou\u201d in this phrase refers to the courts, who are hereby instructed to enforce these rules. You shall not defile yourselves through them: I the LORD am your God. If you do defile yourselves in this way, I am not your God. You have disqualified yourselves from following Me. What use are you to Me then? You deserve destruction.\u2014That is why this passage ends with the declaration, \u201cI the LORD am your God.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall keep My charge. Which is, not to engage in any of the abhorrent practices that were carried on before you. No one should think, \u201cSince those who preceded us got away with them, I will do them too.\u201d I the LORD am your God. This identifies who is giving \u201cMy\u201d charge, so that some mindless person will not ask, \u201cWhat is the point of this \u2018charge\u2019?\u201d I the Lord am your God, so do all that I command you to do.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:1\u20132<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why did God think it necessary for Moses to \u201cspeak to the whole Israelite community\u201d (v. 2) and repeat the Ten Commandments to them?
\n\u2666 If (as the commentators indeed think) the Ten Commandments are being repeated here, why are they not repeated in the order given in Exodus 20?
\n\u2666 Why do so many of the commandments here end with the saying \u201cI the LORD am your God\u201d or simply \u201cI am the LORD\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Speak to the whole Israelite community. This teaches us that this section was spoken in full convocation, since most of the basic building blocks of Torah depend on it. You shall be holy. Keep yourselves apart from the forbidden sexual relationships, even from the thought of transgression. Note that wherever sexual limits are mentioned, holiness is also invoked. E.g., when the priests are warned that they \u201cshall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry,\u201d it is because \u201cthey are holy to their God \u2026 for I the LORD who sanctify you am holy\u201d (21:7\u20138). See also the instructions about the High Priest in 21:14\u201315, \u201cA widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry\u2014such he may not marry. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife\u2014that he may not profane his offspring among his kin, for I the LORD have sanctified him.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall be holy. Because there are so many commandments in this section, they are introduced by an exhortation to the Israelites to make themselves holy and observe them.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The whole Israelite community. The \u201cIsraelite community\u201d excludes the \u201cstrangers\u201d of 18:26, for whom the sexual relationships listed in the previous chapter are prohibited just as they are to Jews. But this next chapter follows so that the Israelites should not think they would be able to stay in the land by following those rules alone. Here He tells them that there are other rules that, if not followed, will result in their being expelled from the land. As comparison will show, they are the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20. I, the LORD your God, am holy. In the opinion of many people, this matches the first of the Ten Commandments, \u201cI the LORD am your God\u201d (Exod. 20:2). \u201cDo not turn to idols or make molten gods for yourselves\u201d (v. 3) matches the prohibition of idolatry in Exod. 20:3\u20135. \u201cYou shall not swear falsely by My name\u201d (v. 12) matches \u201cYou shall not swear falsely by the name of the LORD your God\u201d (Exod. 20:7). \u201cKeep My sabbaths\u201d (v. 3) is \u201cRemember the sabbath day\u201d (Exod. 20:8). \u201cYou shall each revere his mother and his father\u201d (v. 3) is \u201cHonor your father and your mother\u201d (Exod. 20:12). \u201cDo not profit by the blood of your fellow\u201d (v. 16; see my comment there on the correct translation) is \u201cYou shall not murder\u201d (Exod. 20:13). The verse about the woman designated for another man (v. 20) matches the commandment \u201cYou shall not commit adultery\u201d (Exod. 20:13\u2014though that refers to a free woman). \u201cYou shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another\u201d (v. 11) and \u201cyou shall not defraud your fellow\u201d (v. 13) match the remaining three commandments.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Speak to the whole Israelite community. Our Sages said long ago that this section of the Torah was spoken in full convocation\u2014for most of the essential tenets of the Torah depend on it. That is why Moses is told to speak to the \u201cwhole\u201d Israelite community. The reason it is placed here among the priestly matters of Leviticus is that it discusses the offering of well-being and because it lists the punishments that are to be given those who engage in the sexual relationships prohibited in ch. 18 (which belong in Leviticus for the reasons given in our introduction to the book). You shall be holy. Rashi understands this to mean that the Israelites are to separate themselves from the forbidden sexual relationships. But in the Sifra, from which Rashi presumably derives this comment, it says merely \u201cseparate yourselves,\u201d full stop. Similarly, with reference to \u201cyou shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy\u201d (11:44), the Sifra explains this as God saying, \u201cJust as I keep Myself separate, you too must keep yourselves separate.\u201d In my opinion, this does not refer to keeping \u201cseparate\u201d from the sexual transgressions, as Rashi thinks, but to the separateness ascribed throughout the Talmud to the people it calls \u201cPharisees,\u201d that is, \u201cSeparatists,\u201d meaning those who exercise self-restraint. You see, the Torah proscribes immoral sexual relationships and forbidden foods, but it permits intercourse between man and wife, eating meat, and drinking wine. So there is license for a man of appetite to steep himself in lust with his wife (or his many wives), or to \u201cbe of those who guzzle wine, or glut themselves on meat\u201d (Prov. 23:20), or to discuss all sorts of vile things, as long as they involve something that the Torah does not explicitly prohibit. One could therefore be a scoundrel with the full permission of the Torah. So after giving the details of those things that are specifically prohibited (in ch. 18), the Torah now gives us a general commandment to restrain ourselves from excess even in those things that are permitted: to limit intercourse to that which is necessary to fulfill the commandments (as the Talmud says, scholars should not frequent their wives like roosters); to limit our intake of wine (notice that the nazirite of Numbers 6, who may not drink wine, is referred to as \u201choly,\u201d and the Torah presents the evils of wine in its stories about Noah and Lot); and to keep ourselves separate from uncleanness even if it is something not specifically forbidden elsewhere. (Again, the fact that the nazirite\u2014who avoids contact with the dead\u2014is described as \u201choly\u201d provides an example.) One must keep from defiling one\u2019s mouth and tongue by overeating of gross foods and from foul speech, where \u201cevery mouth speaks impiety\u201d (Isa. 9:16). One should sanctify oneself in this way until one reaches the level of restraint of R. Hiyya, who never spoke an idle word in all his days. This general commandment actually goes so far as to include cleanliness as an aspect of holiness; the Talmud links 11:44 to hand washing before and after meals. Even though these are rabbinic commandments, it is in fact the essence of the text to insist that we keep ourselves clean, pure, and separate from the mass of humanity, who soil themselves with all sorts of perfectly permissible ugliness. It is in fact the way of the Torah to conclude a series of specific prohibitions with a general commandment of this kind. After giving the specific details of how business is to be conducted fairly, the Torah concludes, \u201cDo what is right and good in the sight of the LORD\u201d (Deut. 6:18), including a general demand for honesty and equity within the specifics of the law. So one must actually go beyond the letter of the law and act in a way that will win the approval of others, as I shall explain (God willing) when I reach that text. Similarly, with regard to the Sabbath, specific labors are forbidden by explicit prohibition, but overexertion in general is forbidden by the positive injunction to rest. With God\u2019s help, I will explain all of this more fully. For I, the LORD your God, am holy. By being holy ourselves, we earn a close bond to Him. Notice that this is essentially the same as the first of the Ten Commandments. In fact, all 10 of the commandments are contained in this chapter, as R. Levi explains in Leviticus Rabbah.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy. And a holy ruler cannot bear having servants around him who are not themselves holy (Bekhor Shor). That is, you must keep yourselves apart from the material world to the extent you can, in this resembling Me, who am completely free of materiality (Gersonides). The Israelites are reminded of the Ten Commandments here in preparation for the making of the covenant described in ch. 26. They must accept these limitations not in the style of those philosophers who deny their bodies on behalf of their intellects, but because God is not material, and it is enough for the servant to behave as does his master (Abarbanel). People are supposed to try to be as like God as possible, since (according to Gen. 1:26) He created them \u201cin our image, after our likeness\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:3\u20134<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall each revere his mother and his father. NJPS catches the straightforward sense exactly. But OJPS \u201cevery man\u201d is closer to the literal Hebrew idiom. The midrash asks: \u201cIt says only \u2018man\u2019\u2014how do I know that \u2018woman\u2019 is also included?\u2014Because the verb (\u2018revere\u2019) is in the plural.\u2014Why then is \u2018man\u2019 specifically mentioned?\u2014Because a man is independent and has the power to fulfill the commandment; a woman may be under her husband\u2019s authority and unable to do so.\u201d Note too that \u201cmother\u201d precedes \u201cfather\u201d in our verse. It was understood by Him that a man fears his father more than his mother. (\u201cFear\u201d is the literal translation of the verb; see OJPS.) But in the commandment to \u201chonor\u201d one\u2019s parents (Exod. 20:12), the father is given precedence, since it was understood by Him that a man honors his mother more than his father (because she speaks to him in such a way as to keep him on good terms with her). Keep My sabbaths. Sabbath is linked here with fear and reverence of one\u2019s father, for the following reason: even though I have commanded you to revere your father, if he tells you, \u201cViolate the Sabbath,\u201d you must disobey him. The same goes for all the rest of the commandments. I the LORD am your God. You and your father are both obligated to respect and honor Me. Therefore, you must not obey him if it means disregarding My word.
\nWhat is meant by fear and reverence? Not sitting in one\u2019s parents\u2019 places, not contradicting them. What is meant by honor and respect? Making sure they are fed, clothed, and shod; taking them where they need to go and bringing them home.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall each revere his mother and his father, and keep My sabbaths. Just as in the Ten Commandments honoring one\u2019s father and mother is linked to honoring God by observing the Sabbath, here too those commandments are juxtaposed. That is the straightforward sense of the verse.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall each revere his mother and his father. I have already told you, in my introduction to Exodus 21, that though every commandment stands on its own, there nonetheless seems to be a reason they are given in a particular order. Now Exod. 20:12 tells us, \u201cHonor your father and your mother, that you may long endure on the land.\u201d It therefore follows that one who insults his parents will not \u201clong endure on the land,\u201d so it makes sense that one should \u201cfear\u201d them, as our verse is really to be translated (see OJPS). \u201cMother\u201d is mentioned before \u201cfather\u201d here, because at first a child recognizes only his mother, and his father not until later. (Tradition tells us what is implied by \u201crevering\u201d one\u2019s parents.) The verb is plural to say that \u201cyou all shall do so\u201d\u2014everyone who sees the child is obliged to teach it reverence for its parents and correct it when it misbehaves. Keep My sabbaths. This follows next, because even a child is obliged to keep the Sabbath (though not the other festivals). Again the verb is plural, and for the same reason. I the LORD am your God. Who rested from all work on the seventh day. You should do as I did.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall each revere his mother and his father. Compare Exod. 20:12, where the commandment is to honor rather than to fear. Keep My sabbaths. Again, see Exod. 20:8, where the commandment is to \u201cremember,\u201d rather than \u201ckeep,\u201d the Sabbath. I have explained the difference in my comment to that verse.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall each revere his mother and his father. \u201cRevering\u201d one\u2019s parents means the same as \u201chonoring\u201d them; what is added here is that you must do so for the sake of heaven, because \u201cI the LORD am your God.\u201d The reversal of \u201cfather\u201d and \u201cmother\u201d here simply indicates that both are of equal stature, as when the names of Aaron and Moses are reversed in Exod. 6:26\u201327 (Bekhor Shor). Such reverence is a wonderful method for conveying the discipline of Torah (Gersonides). Keep My sabbaths. For the sake of heaven; and profane them (when necessary to care for the sick or save a life) also for the sake of heaven (Bekhor Shor). This commandment to rest one day out of every seven is something that anyone would desire to do; nonetheless, it must observed not out of one\u2019s own inclination, but because it is commanded by God (Abarbanel). Not just the Sabbath of the seventh day, but the sabbatical year and the remission of debts every seventh year (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do not turn to idols. To worship them. The word translated \u201cidol,\u201d elil, is related to al, \u201cnot,\u201d for these \u201cnotlings\u201d are of no account. Molten gods. They start out as \u201cnotlings,\u201d but if you follow them you end up turning them into \u201cgods.\u201d For yourselves. You are not to make them for others, nor are others allowed to make them for you. You cannot interpret the verse to say that you are not allowed to make them \u201cfor yourselves,\u201d but others may make them for you, because Exod. 20:3 has already told us plainly, \u201cYou shall have no other gods besides Me\u201d\u2014not your own, and not someone else\u2019s. You shall not make them, and no one else shall make them \u201cfor yourselves.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not turn to idols. Literally, one must not even think of turning toward them to look. The word elil, translated \u201cidol\u201d here, carries an implication of falsehood; see Job 13:4, where the phrase rof\u2019ei elil is used to describe \u201cquack doctors.\u201d But it may also have some connection with al, \u201cnot,\u201d the point being that they do not really exist. Or make molten gods. As if such a mold could receive power from the higher forces. But I the LORD am your God. And there is no need for you to have any other god along with Me. Note that again both verbs are in the plural. Anyone who sees someone turn to idols or make a molten god and does not report it becomes an accomplice.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not turn to idols. The \u201cturning\u201d is metaphorical: \u201cBut if your heart turns away and you give no heed, and are lured into the worship and service of other gods\u201d (Deut. 30:17, and see Deut. 29:17 as well). One must not believe that they are of any use or that things prophesied in their name will in fact come to pass. They and everything connected with them should be considered utterly worthless. For nothing occurs but by a decree of the One on high. The Sages understand this verse to prohibit even looking at an idol\u2014one should simply pay them no attention whatsoever. Or make molten gods for yourselves. Idols are forbidden from the very moment they are made. Idolatry is forbidden over and over again in the Torah.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I the LORD am your God. And you can make no likeness of me; as Isa. 40:18 says, \u201cTo whom, then, can you liken God, what form compare to Him?\u201d (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:5\u20137<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why were the instructions about offerings of well-being (vv. 5\u20138) inserted into this repetition of the Ten Commandments?
\n\u2666 Why are the other kinds of offerings not mentioned?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When you sacrifice an offering of well-being to the LORD. This paragraph was included not to say when the sacrificial meat must be eaten\u2014for that is already known from 7:16, \u201cit shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice, and what is left of it shall be eaten on the morrow\u201d\u2014but to insist that the sacrifices must be offered with the specific intent to eat the meat before the third day. Sacrifice it so that it may be accepted on your behalf. Your original intention must always be that you offer the sacrifice for My pleasure. If you do so, it will be accepted. But if you start off by having in mind to invalidate the sacrifice, it will not be \u201caccepted on your behalf\u201d before Me. This is the straightforward sense of the verse. But the Sages interpret our phrase as follows: \u201cSlaughter it intentionally.\u201d If someone was playing with the knife and slaughtered the animal without the intent to slaughter it as a sacrifice, it is invalid.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
So that it may be accepted on your behalf. It must be without blemish and one must lay one\u2019s hand upon it and follow all the rules of a proper sacrifice, including that given in v. 6.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When you sacrifice an offering of well-being. Despite the paragraphing in the translations, this verse continues the subject of v. 4. For one must not sacrifice to demons or un-gods, but only to the Lord. In this case, the plural verb alludes to the fact that ordinarily a number of people would combine to offer a single sacrifice. So that it may be accepted on your behalf. Rather, \u201cyou must bring it willingly.\u201d You may not be compelled to do so.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When you sacrifice an offering of well-being to the LORD, sacrifice it so that it may be accepted on your behalf. Having forbidden sacrifices to or any other worship of \u201cidols\u201d and \u201cmolten gods,\u201d thereby restricting all worship exclusively to the Unique Name, the text now explains that even such worship must be done in such a way as to be acceptable: \u201cHe shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his behalf\u201d (1:4). It must be \u201cacceptable\u201d in just the same sense that a slave\u2019s behavior is \u201cacceptable\u201d to his master when he does all that he is commanded. Just as there is no value in worshiping idols, so too one should not serve the Holy One in order to receive a reward, but rather to fulfill His will. For His uncompounded will is both appropriate and obligatory. The reason offerings of well-being are mentioned here is because they, being of a lesser degree of holiness than the other offerings, are eaten by those who bring them. Those who bring such offerings must therefore be cautioned to make sure that their intentions in offering them are acceptable. This obviously applies all the more so with offerings of a higher degree of holiness. Or it may be because such offerings are the particular m\u00e9tier of Israel; as our Sages have said, the other descendants of Noah do not bring offerings of well-being. The enlightened person will understand. But the Sages also interpret this verse to say that you must sacrifice according to your will, that is, deliberately.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Sacrifice it so that it may be accepted on your behalf. Rather, \u201cwith a good will\u201d\u2014generously, not grudgingly (Bekhor Shor). Some people offer sacrifices not of their own will, but because they are embarrassed not to do so when they see others offering them (Hizkuni). One must not profane the things sacred to God even in thought (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it, or on the day following. When you sacrifice it, you must slaughter it with the intent of eating it during the period of time I have set.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If it should be eaten on the third day. We already know from 7:18 that \u201cif any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable.\u201d So our verse cannot be referring to eating the sacrifice outside of its time limit. Interpret it, then, as referring to eating the sacrifice outside of a limited place. We might think that one who eats the sacrifice in the wrong place would be punished by cutting off; but 7:18 continues, \u201cthe person who eats of it shall bear his guilt.\u201d One who eats \u201cof it,\u201d a sacrifice slaughtered with intent to eat it at the wrong time, is punished; but one who eats of a sacrifice slaughtered with intent to eat it at the wrong place is not. It is an offensive thing. The connotation of the Hebrew term is expressed in Isa. 65:4, telling of those \u201cwho sit inside tombs and pass the night in secret places; who eat the flesh of swine, with broth of unclean things in their bowls.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If it should be eaten on the third day. The Sages interpret this expression to mean \u201cif one sacrifices it with the intent to eat it outside of the proper location.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It is an offensive thing. The reference is to meat whose smell and appearance have changed (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:8\u201311<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What are the instructions about harvesting (vv. 9\u201310) doing here?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And he who eats of it shall bear his guilt. Here the text is speaking about a sacrifice that is actually left over to the third day. But again, sacrificial meat slaughtered with the intent to eat it out of its place has already been exempted from this provision. As B. Ker. 5a explains, we learn this from a comparison of the language in this verse and in Exod. 29:34. (In both verses, what has been wrongfully \u201cleft over\u201d is referred to as kodesh, \u201csomething sacred.\u201d) It is referring only to meat that is literally left over to the third day.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He who eats of it. More precisely, \u201cevery one\u201d that eats of it (see OJPS). That is the implication of combining a plural subject (as here) with a singular verb (in the continuation). See, e.g., Prov. 28:1. For he has profaned what is sacred to the LORD. Once the sacrificial parts are offered to God, the rest of the meat is considered sacred. \u201cProfaned\u201d is related to the word for \u201cempty space\u201d; he has emptied the sacrifice of meaning. Such eating was prohibited in 7:18, but now the punishment for it is explained: that person shall be cut off from his kin.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field. The same word is used in v. 27. He must leave a kind of \u201csidelock\u201d at the end of his field. The gleanings of your harvest. Technically, if one or two stalks are dropped while harvesting, they are to be left for gleaning, but three or more are not \u201cgleaning\u201d and may be picked up.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When you reap the harvest of your land. After having brought an offering of well-being, then just as you gave the sacrificial parts to the Lord, you must give some of the harvest of your land to \u201cthe poor and the stranger\u201d (v. 10) in God\u2019s honor. The first vowel of the word translated \u201creap\u201d is unusual, but this is simply a variant of the Qal infinitive construct. The edges of your field. He must leave one side of the field unharvested. Gleanings. Everyone knows what this means.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field. It is much easier for a person to leave a little something for the poor than to give it to them once he has taken possession of it. But of course he need not literally leave \u201cthe edge\u201d of the field; the poor person does not care whether it is left there or in the middle (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not pick your vineyard bare. The verb olel is related to the similar word that refers to an infant. You must not pick the immature grapes, which are easy to recognize because they do not yet form large clusters that hang down. The fallen fruit of your vineyard. This refers to individual grapes that fall to the ground during the harvest. I the LORD am your God. Remember that elohim, \u201cGod,\u201d can mean \u201cjudge\u201d as well. I the Lord am a judge who can collect what you owe. But what I will collect from you is your lives: \u201cDo not rob the wretched because he is wretched; do not crush the poor man in the gate; for the LORD will take up their cause and despoil those who despoil them of life\u201d (Prov. 22:22\u201323).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not pick your vineyard bare. The verb refers to picking all the way to the edge. \u201cThus said the LORD of Hosts: Let them glean over and over, as a vine, the remnant of Israel\u201d (Jer. 6:9).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not pick your vineyard bare. Rather, \u201cyou shall not pick all of the small ones out.\u201d The verb olel is related to the nouns olel and olal, which mean \u201ca child\u201d or \u201ca suckling.\u201d This verb conjugation is sometimes used, as here, with the meaning of removing something, as in \u201croot you out of the land of the living\u201d (Ps. 52:7). The fallen fruit. The technical meaning of this is known from tradition. The poor and the stranger. \u201cThe poor\u201d are the Jewish poor; \u201cthe strangers\u201d are the non-Jews who live among you.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. Since the harvest comes but once a year, the \u201cpoor\u201d person here is technically anyone who does not have as much as he needs for the coming year (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not steal. This in fact does refer to stealing money, while \u201cYou shall not steal\u201d in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:13) refers to kidnapping\u2014stealing a human being. For our verse comes in an economic context, while the Exodus verse places \u201cYou shall not steal\u201d between murder and adultery, both capital crimes. You shall not deal deceitfully or falsely. We have seen the punishment for this already in 5:24, which instructs us that \u201che shall repay the principal amount and add a fifth part to it.\u201d This applies both to the \u201cdeceit\u201d mentioned in 5:22 and the \u201cfalse swearing\u201d mentioned there. Here we have the commandments not to do so, justifying such punishment. In context, our verse suggests that a person who steals will go on to deal deceitfully and falsely, and will end up (see v. 12) swearing falsely by God\u2019s name.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not steal. Money. You shall not deal deceitfully. Illegitimately retaining money that entered one\u2019s possession legally \u201cby dealing deceitfully with one\u2019s fellow in the matter of a deposit or a pledge\u201d (5:21). Or falsely. Lying about money that was lent to him.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not steal. Having even been commanded to give of your own possessions to the poor in God\u2019s honor, you must quite obviously not take someone else\u2019s possessions for yourself. Again, the plural verb indicates that one who sees a theft and remains silent is himself a thief. You shall not deal deceitfully. With someone who has deposited a pledge with you. Again, one who knows of this and does not testify about it is himself dealing deceitfully. Or falsely. By demanding money from someone who does not actually owe him anything.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another. \u201cDeceitfully,\u201d by denying that he ever entrusted money to you, or that you ever even saw him; \u201cfalsely,\u201d by promising to do something, taking his money, and then refusing to keep your word (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:12\u201314<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not swear falsely by My name. Why was this said? We are told in Exod. 20:7, \u201cYou shall not swear falsely by the name of the LORD your God,\u201d from which one might think the prohibition applies only to the Tetragrammaton. Now our verse comes to apply it to all the divine names: \u201cYou shall not swear falsely by any name that I have.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not swear falsely by My name. Under any circumstances, whether or not money is involved.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not swear falsely by My name. This follows naturally after \u201cYou shall not steal\u201d etc. (v. 11), for one who is suspected of theft or deceitful dealing must swear his innocence. Here the plural serves to include also the one who brings the accusation against him, who is responsible for making him swear. Profaning the name of your God. One who swears to a lie is denying the Lord, as I have explained in my comment to Exod. 20:7.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not swear falsely by My name, profaning the name of your God. See Rashi\u2019s comment, which is taken from the Sifra. But according to the True interpretation, \u201cMy name\u201d refers to the Unique Name, and \u201cthe name of your God\u201d refers to Elohim, from which name all the other names of God are derived. But in Exod. 20:7 the two are reversed. We therefore learn that one who swears falsely by the Unique Name profanes the name Elohim\u2014and \u201cthe LORD will not clear one who swears falsely by His name\u201d (Exod. 20:7).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not defraud your fellow. In Jewish law, this phrase refers technically to withholding the wages of a day laborer. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning. The verse refers to a day laborer, whose workday ends at sunset. Thus one has all night to pay him. Deut. 24:15, \u201cYou must pay him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets,\u201d refers to one who has worked on the previous night, who finishes work at dawn; you therefore have all day to pay him. For the Torah gives the employer a period of half a day to come up with the money.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not defraud your fellow. \u201cCheating laborers of their hire, and subverting the cause of the \u2026 stranger\u201d (Mal. 3:5). You shall not commit robbery. As when Benaiah \u201cwrenched the spear out of the Egyptian\u2019s hand, and killed him with his own spear\u201d (2 Sam. 23:21), where the same verb is used. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning. This refers to the wages of a laborer who works at night.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not defraud your fellow. In secret. You shall not commit robbery. Publicly, by force. The wages of a laborer. The word translated \u201cwages\u201d etymologically means \u201cwork.\u201d It is used the same way as in our verse in \u201cHis reward is with Him, His recompense before Him\u201d (Isa. 40:10). Perhaps it is a kind of shorthand for \u201cthe payment for his work.\u201d Shall not remain with you until morning. Many explain this injunction as relating to a situation where the employer says, \u201cWork for me tomorrow as well, and tomorrow I will give you two days\u2019 wages.\u201d Our tradition tells us that it refers specifically to a day laborer; by contrast, the wages of one who works at night must be paid to him during the next day, before the sun goes down.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning. You shall not tell him, \u201cI will pay you in five days.\u201d There is no robbery greater than this; the man has nothing to eat. The injunction against false swearing is of no help here, since he freely admits he owes him the money but simply refuses to pay (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not insult the deaf. Literally, you shall not \u201ccurse\u201d him (see OJPS). So it is all right, then, to curse everyone else? No, \u201cYou shall not \u2026 put a curse upon \u2026 your people\u201d (Exod. 22:27). What do we learn from this special verse referring to the deaf? A dead person also cannot hear your insult\u2014but not because he is deaf. So this rule does not apply to the dead. Or place a stumbling block before the blind. Do not give bad advice to one who is blind to the truth. For example, do not tell him, \u201cSell your property and buy a donkey,\u201d just because you want to finagle him out of the property. You shall fear your God. People cannot always tell whether a person\u2019s intentions were good or bad. He can always disclaim responsibility by pretending that his intentions were for the best. \u201cYou shall fear your God,\u201d therefore, who knows what you were thinking. Wherever a person\u2019s true intentions can be concealed from others, this phrase is invoked.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not insult the deaf. It is not only the deaf whom one is forbidden to insult\u2014but the text specifies a common occurrence. The noun pattern of the word heresh is the same as that of ivver, \u201cblind,\u201d or gibben, \u201chunchback,\u201d differing (in the first vowel) only because one cannot double an r in Hebrew.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not insult the deaf. Which his circumstances have given you the power to do. Or place a stumbling block before the blind. The same logic applies. You shall fear your God. For He has the power to punish you by making you deaf or blind.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not insult the deaf. See Rashi\u2019s comment, which is taken (with some alterations) from the Sifra. But the Talmud connects our verse with Exod. 22:27 in a different way. There, one is forbidden to revile judges and chieftains, the most honored positions in the nation. (People sometimes curse the government when some ruling goes against them, and this can lead to disaster. For the masses foolishly hate the authorities and may even rise up against them\u2014though they \u201csustain the land by justice,\u201d as Prov. 29:4 has it\u2014which is why there is an extra commandment specifically about them.) Here, the same courtesy is extended to the most forlorn. Between the two, the Sages derive a general principle that applies to everyone, from top to bottom. Of course, the straightforward sense of the prohibition is that one is forbidden to insult a deaf person even though he himself cannot hear and will therefore not get angry. It goes without saying that a hearing person would be embarrassed and angry. Or place a stumbling block before the blind. Again the text is dealing with a real-life problem. People insult the deaf or place a stumbling block before the blind because they can do so without fear\u2014such people by their nature \u201cneither know nor understand\u201d (Ps. 82:5). But you shall fear your God. For He sees what is hidden from others.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. This is a metaphor: the stronger shall not afflict the weaker (Abarbanel). After the commands protecting a person\u2019s money come these two, protecting his honor and his physical person (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:15\u201316<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not render an unfair decision. Rather, an unrighteous, illegitimate one. A judge who does so is a loathsome reptile. For this word \u201cunrighteousness\u201d (see OJPS) is associated with abomination: \u201cEveryone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 25:16), and elsewhere we learn, \u201cYou must not bring an abhorrent thing into your house, or you will be proscribed like it; you must reject it as abominable and abhorrent, for it is proscribed\u201d (Deut. 7:26). Do not favor the poor. Do not think, \u201cThis fellow is poor, and his rich adversary is obligated to support him anyway: I will award the verdict to him and he can get his support without embarrassment.\u201d Or show deference to the rich. Do not think, \u201cThis fellow is rich and comes from a powerful family: how can I embarrass him in public? It might come back to haunt me!\u201d Judge your kinsman fairly. This means what it says. But another reading explains it outside the judicial realm: judge your fellow man \u201cin righteousness\u201d (OJPS)\u2014give him the benefit of the doubt.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not render an unfair decision. This verse is directed both at the judges and the witnesses. The rich. Literally, \u201cthe great\u201d (see OJPS \u201cthe mighty\u201d). But NJPS has correctly understood the implication. We find King David\u2019s friend Barzillai too described as \u201cgreat\u201d in a context that makes clear that it means \u201cgreat in wealth\u201d: \u201cBarzillai was very old, eighty years of age; and he had provided the king with food during his stay at Mahanaim, for he was a very wealthy man\u201d (2 Sam. 19:33).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not render an unfair decision. The Hebrew expression (see OJPS) refers not only to rendering an unfair decision, but also to deliberately delaying a decision in order to harm the cause of one of the parties (Gersonides). You shall not treat those who come before you unfairly, being lenient with one and tough on another, making one stand and allowing another to sit (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do not deal basely with your countrymen. Rather, \u201cThou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people\u201d (OJPS). I understand this word rakil, \u201ca talebearer,\u201d in the sense of ragil, \u201cregular,\u201d which is related also to regel, \u201cfoot.\u201d For gossipers and purveyors of strife regularly go from house to house, to spy on their friends so that they can later retail whatever nasty little thing they have seen or heard. You will find that this particular word for talebearing is always used along with the verb \u201cto go\u201d (e.g., Jer. 6:28), while other expressions concerning harmful speech do not use that verb (e.g., Ps. 12:4; 101:5; 120:2). I think, therefore, that \u201cgoing about\u201d is an essential component of \u201ctalebearing\u201d\u2014note also the relationship with the verb l\u2019ragel, \u201cto spy.\u201d For k and g frequently interchange, as is the case with all sounds that are produced in the same place in the mouth: b and p, f and v, g and k and q, n and l, z and tz. Note that the r-g-l verb is used with regard to evil speech in 2 Sam. 19:28 and Ps. 15:3, just as r-k-l is used here. Elsewhere, the word rokel is used for a merchant who goes about (m\u2019ragel) in search of trade (see, e.g., 1 Kings 10:15; Song 3:6). Onkelos here uses the Aramaic idiom \u201cto eat some bites,\u201d found also in Dan. 3:8, \u201ccertain Chaldeans came forward to slander the Jews.\u201d (You can find the same idiom in the Talmud, for example, on B. Ber. 58a, where R. Shila is \u201caccused\u201d of sitting in judgment without governmental authority.) It seems to me that this expression comes from the custom of such people to have a bite to eat in every house where they went to retail their gossip\u2014for eating together is taken as a sign of trustworthiness. This \u201cbite\u201d was literally called \u201cwinking food\u201d; \u201cbite\u201d and \u201cwink\u201d are related in Hebrew (see Prov. 6:13, \u201cwinking his eyes, shuffling his feet, pointing his finger\u201d). Gossips are always winking to hint at something that those who do not get the wink will not understand. Do not profit by the blood of your fellow. Rather, \u201cneither shalt thou stand idly by\u201d (OJPS). You may not simply stand and watch him die if there is a possibility that you might be able to save him\u2014for example, if someone is drowning, or being attacked by a wild animal or a robber. I am the LORD. I can be relied on to grant reward and to inflict punishment.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Do not deal basely with your countrymen. Rather, do not \u201cgo up and down as a talebearer\u201d (OJPS). Do not go back and forth from town to town carrying evil reports from one to another. The Aramaic verb used by Onkelos (which sounds like \u201ceating\u201d) actually refers to \u201cannouncing\u201d one\u2019s gossip, as does Dan. 3:8. This we learn from the Aramaic translation of \u201cthe LORD thundered forth from heaven\u201d (2 Sam. 22:14), which uses the same verb in the sense of \u201cmaking something heard.\u201d Do not profit by the blood of your fellow. Rather, do not \u201cstand\u201d idly by (OJPS). For it is permissible to save him even at the cost of his pursuer\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not deal basely with your countrymen. Rather, \u201cThou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer\u201d (OJPS). The Hebrew word literally refers to commerce: \u201cThey shall plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise\u201d (Ezek. 26:12); \u201call the powders of the merchant\u201d (Song 3:6). Just as the merchant buys from this one and sells to that one, so a slanderer tells this one what he heard from that one. Do not profit by the blood of your fellow. Rather, \u201cdo not take a stand against the blood of your fellow\u201d\u2014do not conspire with violent men against him. It is obvious that many people have been murdered and otherwise killed on account of talebearing. If you need proof of this, see 1 Samuel 22, where Doeg the Edomite rats on David, telling Saul where to find him, with the result that an entire town is wiped out. I am the LORD. I am aware of what you do in secret.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not deal basely with your countrymen. See Rashi\u2019s comment about \u201ceating some bites.\u201d There is no accounting for taste, but Rashi\u2019s comments here are certainly not to mine. I simply do not understand the point of \u201ceating\u201d in this context. Nebuchadnezzar did what he did to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in Daniel 3 at their own explicit instruction, not on the basis of eating with the slanderers, for he asked them, \u201cIs it true that you do not serve my god or worship the statue of gold that I have set up?\u201d (Dan. 3:14), and they refused to do so. The same is true in the story of Daniel and Darius. There, in fact, \u201cby order of the king, those men who had slandered Daniel were brought and, together with their children and wives, were thrown into the lions\u2019 den\u201d (Dan. 6:25). Even if they did in fact do this \u201ceating\u201d back in those days, that is not what our text is talking about, so why would Onkelos mention such a stupid custom? The Aramaic idiom he uses simply means \u201cto make a noise.\u201d It is quite common in rabbinic literature, and Targum Jonathan uses it in many places. The expression means to make a noise that expresses what you want without actually articulating any words. Talebearers come before the public or the authorities, and they clear their throats and wink to indicate that they have something to tell; finally the others urge them to say it and they do so. It is this noise they make in their throats that is the source of the Aramaic phrase. Onkelos translates idiomatically, as he always does. The Hebrew idiom, however, sees talebearing not as \u201ceating\u201d but as \u201cgadding about.\u201d That is the point of prohibiting it \u201camong your people\u201d (see OJPS), for such a person goes around to everyone carrying his tales. That is why our verse does not use the verb form, which simply refers to engaging in commerce, but a noun in a specific form used to indicate something about the character of the person who does it. He therefore bears his tales \u201cnot knowing his life is at stake\u201d (Prov. 7:23), for what he does will redound against him.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not deal basely with your countrymen. If you do \u201cgo up and down as a talebearer\u201d (as this really means), you will \u201cstand idly by the blood of your neighbor\u201d (see OJPS)\u2014if you tell a man that So-and-So is slandering him, he may well kill him. If the commandment not to \u201cstand idly by\u201d were introduced with and, I would understand that it was a separate commandment; as written, it is clearly a result of violating the commandment against talebearing (Bekhor Shor). Such talebearing is not excused by the tale being true, if the teller\u2019s purpose is to spark hatred and rivalry (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:17\u201318<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But incur no guilt because of him. Do not make him blanch in public.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. If he has mistreated you, do not pretend to love him \u201cbut lay an ambush for him in your heart\u201d (Jer. 9:7). That is not the right thing to do. Do not hate him secretly, but rather reprove your kinsman for whatever it was that he did to you. From this open reproof, peace will result, and you will incur no guilt because of him. Rather, you will no longer \u201ccarry this wrong feeling about him\u201d in your heart.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Au contraire! You must \u201clove your fellow as yourself\u201d (v. 18). Note that these two commandments are matters hidden in the heart, not external actions\u2014yet the Israelites would only be able to remain settled in the land by keeping them. For the Second Temple was destroyed on account of gratuitous hatred. Reprove your kinsman. Reprove him openly, for perhaps your suspicion is ungrounded. Incur no guilt because of him. You would be punished on his account if you suspected him unfairly and did not bring the matter out into the open.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. For people who hate have a tendency to conceal their hatred in their heart: \u201cAn enemy dissembles with his speech, inwardly he harbors deceit\u201d (Prov. 26:24). Our text is not saying that it is all right to hate openly; it is prohibiting the more common thing. Notice that one who hates his fellow violates a prohibition, while one who loves his fellow (v. 18) fulfills a positive commandment. Reprove your kinsman. This is a separate commandment. You are supposed to inform him when he has done wrong. Incur no guilt because of him. For you would owe a guilt offering if he is going to sin and you fail to reprove him. The language used by Onkelos also inclines toward this interpretation of the phrase.
\nIt seems to me, though, that our verse is using the word \u201creprove\u201d in the same way as when \u201cAbraham reproached Abimelech for the well of water which the servants of Abimelech had seized\u201d (Gen. 21:25). When your fellow does something to you that you do not like, you must not keep your dislike inside, but must reproach him: \u201cWhy did you do that to me?\u201d You must not commit the sin of harboring enmity for him and not telling him. When you do reprove him, he will either explain his behavior to you or will apologize for what he did, and you will forgive him. The text goes on to say that you must not \u201ctake vengeance or bear a grudge\u201d (v. 18) against him for what he did. It is, of course, quite possible to forgive but not forget. So the text insists that one must wipe one\u2019s fellow\u2019s misdeed out of one\u2019s heart along with one\u2019s former hatred for him. Then it will be possible to \u201clove one\u2019s fellow as oneself.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge. Suppose someone asks his friend, \u201cLend me your knife,\u201d and the other man turns him down. The next day the second man says, \u201cLend me your shovel.\u201d If the first man says, \u201cI won\u2019t lend it to you, just as you wouldn\u2019t lend your knife to me\u201d\u2014that is \u201cvengeance.\u201d And what is bearing a grudge? As follows: The first man says, \u201cLend me your shovel,\u201d and the other one refuses. Next day, the second man says, \u201cLend me your knife.\u201d The first man replies, \u201cHere it is. I am not going to refuse to lend it to you, as you did to me.\u201d That is \u201cbearing a grudge.\u201d The Hebrew verb refers to holding on to something or retaining it. When someone bears a grudge, he holds on to his enmity in his heart even if he does not take vengeance. Love your fellow as yourself. It is forbidden to do to others what you would not want done to yourself. R. Akiva said: \u201cThis is a great principle of the Torah.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not take vengeance. By doing wrong to him as he did to you. Or bear a grudge. Even in your heart. You should not insist on your rights. Love your fellow as yourself. If he is your fellow, that is, if he is good to you. But if he is evil to you\u2014well, \u201cTo fear the LORD is to hate evil\u201d (Prov. 8:13).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge. This is explained in rabbinic literature. Love your fellow as yourself. The translations follow the predominant opinion, which is that the l- preposition on \u201cyour fellow\u201d here is (unusually) marking the direct object; see similarly \u201cNow Joab and his brother Abishai had killed Abner\u201d (2 Sam. 3:30), which also has this preposition. But in my opinion, it should be translated as it normally would be: \u201cLove what is good for your fellow as you would for yourself.\u201d I am the LORD. I am the one God who has created you all.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge. Our Sages have already explained this as referring to slights such as refusal to lend one\u2019s tools\u2014not to monetary disputes, for in those cases one is permitted to sue in court for one\u2019s money: \u201cas he has done so shall it be done to him\u201d (24:19). He is completely obligated to pay. Even more so must one take vengeance for the life of one\u2019s slain relative, albeit by legal means, through a court that hands down judgments in accordance with the teachings of the Torah. Love your fellow as yourself. This is hyperbole. One cannot literally be commanded to feel the same love for someone else as one does for oneself. In practical terms, R. Akiva has already taught us that if only one life can be saved, you should save your own life at the expense of another person\u2019s. What the Torah is commanding is that, in practical terms, one should treat the other person in every respect just as one would wish to be treated. But it may be significant that the text (both here and in v. 34) does not literally say \u201clove your fellow as yourself,\u201d but adds a preposition that the English translations have not included: \u201clove for your fellow.\u201d This would have to be explained as meaning that one\u2019s love for others should be equivalent to one\u2019s love for oneself. For sometimes a person might love another in some respects but not all, treating him well (for example) with regard to money matters but not to intellectual ones. If he loved him completely, he would want him to have wealth and property, honor, knowledge, and wisdom\u2014but it is human nature that he will always want more of them for himself. The text commands that one should not nurture these petty jealousies, but love one\u2019s fellow with the same unlimited love that one has for oneself. This is the kind of love that Jonathan had for David; as we are told, \u201che loved him as himself\u201d (1 Sam. 20:17). He eliminated all jealousy from his heart, telling David, \u201cYou are going to be king over Israel and I shall be second to you; and even my father Saul knows this is so\u201d (1 Sam. 23:17).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not take vengeance. For your wrath may gain mastery over you. But, as Nah. 1:2 tells us, \u201cThe LORD is vengeful and a master of wrath\u201d (Hizkuni). How is it possible that in such a small, confined space as the heart\u2014half full of blood and half of breath\u2014there could be room for both hatred and love? So remove the hatred from your heart and love your fellow as yourself; do not say, \u201cI will not bear a grudge against my countryman, but neither will I love him\u201d (Abarbanel). I am the LORD. And your love for Me should cause you to forget your hatred of your fellow (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall observe My laws. And here they are: You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind. And so forth. There is no reason for the laws in this verse; they are merely \u201cdecrees of the king.\u201d Cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material. Since Deut. 22:11 says, \u201cYou shall not wear a combination of wool and linen,\u201d why is this statement also necessary? That verse might be understood to mean that one could not even wear wool shearings and flax at the same time. Our verse, therefore, explains that the rule applies only when they are combined in a single piece of cloth. How do we know that felt\u2014wool and linen combined, but not into cloth\u2014is included in the prohibition? By the use of the word sha\u2019atnez, \u201cmixture,\u201d referring to something that is shua tavui va-nuz, \u201ccarded, spun, and woven.\u201d (By \u201cwoven\u201d I understand that they are rubbed and twisted together.) But Menahem (in his Ma\u1e25beret) simply explains sha\u2019atnez as \u201clinsey-woolsey.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind. According to the way the world works, and as a response to the Christians, this verse is telling us: since in the story of creation God commanded that each kind of living thing should reproduce its own kind, here He commands that we too should treat the world the same way and avoid mixing things that are unlike\u2014whether it is breeding animals, sowing a field, grafting trees, or even yoking animals of different kinds together. Cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material. Specifically wool (which comes from an animal) and linen (which comes from a plant). What I told the Christians is that wool is dyed and linen is not. So the text is forbidding any garment that is not one solid color. And they admitted that I was correct.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall observe My laws. The reason these commandments come after \u201cloving one\u2019s fellow\u201d is as follows: Since you are holy, you must do no violence to one who is human like you; nor may you treat an animal in such a way as to alter what God has made. \u201cObserving My laws\u201d in this context means keeping things in their separate categories as I have made them, without mixing the various kinds together. You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind. The Hebrew word has a dual ending, implying \u201ctwo\u201d\u2014the same word used in the expressions two kinds of seed and two kinds of material. I will explain this word further elsewhere. A mixture. Tradition takes this word sha\u2019atnez as a contraction of three words, shua tavui vanuz; or perhaps it is a quinqueliteral root. But it does indeed mean \u201cmixture\u201d or \u201cmingling,\u201d as the translations have it. It occurs only here and in Deut. 22:11 and is unique, being absolutely unrelated to any other word in the Bible. Two kinds of material. Both the rule about the field and that about the cloth have the same purpose: as a symbolic reminder not to let two animals of different species mate. For a great many of the commandments have as their purpose to keep us in mind of more important things\u2014Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, wearing ritual fringes, blowing the ram\u2019s horn, putting a mezuzah on one\u2019s door, wearing phylacteries. Here I will merely hint to you at the underlying reason for this commandment. Know that one who is complete is complete indeed. That is why God said of Abraham, \u201cAbraham obeyed Me and kept My charge: My commandments, My laws, and My teachings\u201d (Gen. 26:5).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall observe My laws. Rashi says that these rules are simply \u201cdecrees,\u201d with no rationale. But the Sages made this comment only with reference to the prohibition about mixing fabric, not to that against mating different species. It is only this that the idolaters\u2014not to mention one\u2019s own evil inclination\u2014think of as illogical. They certainly did not mean that the decrees of the King are in any way purposeless, for \u201cevery word of God is pure\u201d (Prov. 30:5). The laws are God\u2019s \u201cdecrees\u201d as a king may issue decrees for his kingdom without revealing in what way they are beneficial to the people. In such a case, where the people do not immediately and obviously benefit, they secretly question the decrees, but they accept them because they fear the king. So too the laws of the Holy One. They are the mysteries of the Torah, which the people imagine they do not benefit from (as they clearly do from the \u201crulings\u201d that make obvious sense). But the laws too have right reasoning behind them and are completely utilitarian. You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind. With regard to the forbidden mixing of species, the Lord created all the species in the world, both plant and animal, and gave them the power to reproduce so that they would each continue to exist as long as He wishes the world to exist. He commanded that this power to reproduce should be such that they would reproduce forever, unchanging, each \u201caccording to its kind\u201d (see Genesis 1). The sexuality of animals (by which means we breed them) exists for the purpose of perpetuating their species, just as men come to women to \u201cbe fruitful and multiply\u201d (Gen. 1:22, 28). But one who interbreeds two different species changes and (thereby) challenges God\u2019s work of creation. It is as if he thinks the Holy One did not completely finish the work of creation, and he wishes to help out by adding additional creatures to the world. In any case, interbreeding of animal species is infertile, or at least (when the two species are related) the animals that are produced, like mules, are themselves infertile. So this interbreeding of different species is in one respect worthless and in another repugnant. The prohibition of plowing \u201cwith an ox and an ass together\u201d (Deut. 22:10) is based on the same logic, since farmers keep their team together in the barn and might end up letting them mate. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed. By the compounding of two plant species (which is how our Sages interpret this phrase) as well there is created a plant that can no longer reproduce. So the same two rationales apply. But even the mere mixing of the seeds is prohibited, since they draw nourishment from each other, changing both their nature and their form. Each kernel would be compounded (as it were) of two different species. One of our colleagues adds a further reason: Prohibition of such mixtures prevents an imbalance among the supernal forces that cause the plants to grow. (R. Simon explains in Genesis Rabbah that every blade of grass has a constellation that strikes it and orders it, \u201cGrow!\u201d As God asks Job in Job 38:33, \u201cDo you know the laws of heaven or impose its authority on earth?\u201d) One who combines two different plant varieties or seeds therefore violates \u201cthe laws of heaven,\u201d which is why our verse begins by declaring, \u201cYou shall observe My laws.\u201d One who intermingles two plant varieties is challenging God\u2019s own work of creation. You shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material. I cannot agree with Rashi\u2019s comment. Felt is subject only to a rabbinic prohibition, not to a biblical one. The reason for the prohibition against wearing cloth from two kinds of material is again to prevent the mixing of species. The \u201cwool and linen\u201d specifically prohibited in Deut. 22:11 are simply the most common combination from which cloth is in fact made. Maimonides says in Guide 3:37 that the prohibition was due to the fact that in those days it was widely known that priests of witchcraft performed their rituals wearing this specific kind of cloth. He says he found this written down in their books. Since this was such an important thing for them and their idolatrous, demonic rituals, the Torah wished to keep people far from it. For the Torah comes to nullify their deeds and wipe out all remembrance of them.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall observe My laws. All of the things proscribed in the rest of the chapter were part of their way of life at the time, but most of them go against nature as it was intended by the One who set it up (Sforno). You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind. Thereby arrogating to yourself the position of Creator (Bekhor Shor). I, the Lord, being One in My every aspect, detest all such combinations of opposites\u2014so how can you wish to combine hatred with love? (Abarbanel). You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed. It is natural that various plants sometimes end up growing together; there is no harm in this as long as the proportion of the intended crop is not greater than 1 in 24. In any case, this is simply a matter of appearance; such plants do not draw nourishment from each other (Gersonides). You shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material. Since the priestly vestments are made of linsey-woolsey, it is forbidden for ordinary people to wear garments of such cloth (Bekhor Shor). The ruling on B. Nid. 61b that this law does not apply unless the cloth was \u201ccarded, spun, and woven\u201d is not in fact a talmudic ruling at all, but one made by the early ge\u2019onim, and should be ignored; such rulings often made their way into the text of the Talmud, as Rashi explains in some places in his Talmud commentary (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Designated for another man. The English translations understand the word here correctly; it refers to a woman being designated for a specific man. But I do not know any example of this usage anywhere else in the Bible. In terms of Jewish law, our verse is referring specifically to a woman who is half a non-Jewish slave and half a free Jew and who is \u201cdesignated for\u201d\u2014that is, engaged to\u2014a Jewish slave, who would indeed be permitted to marry such a woman. But has not been redeemed. Rather, as the Hebrew more literally has it, the woman is half redeemed and half unredeemed. (Redemption implies monetary payment.) Or given her freedom. By giving her a document attesting to it. There shall be an indemnity. Rather, \u201cthere shall be an investigation.\u201d The court must inquire closely into the matter in order to avoid putting her to death, as they would if she were married. Instead, she (but not he) is whipped. Our Sages read this phrase to mean \u201cIt shall be done with recitation,\u201d insisting that the judges who have someone whipped must recite the following: \u201cIf you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching that are written in this book, to reverence this honored and awesome Name, the LORD your God, the LORD will inflict extraordinary plagues upon you and your offspring, strange and lasting plagues, malignant and chronic diseases\u201d (Deut. 28:58\u201359). Since she has not been freed. Since she is not entirely free, marriage with her cannot take full effect. If she had been freed, then her marriage would have taken full effect, and the man who had carnal relations with her would be subject to the death penalty.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Designated. The slave woman of this verse is one who is given to a Hebrew slave as wife by his master (see Exod. 21:4). The word itself is found in Judg. 5:18, \u201cZebulun is a people that jeoparded their lives unto death,\u201d that is, they put their lives into the power of death (see similarly the Aramaic translation of that verse). But has not been redeemed. Having not been emancipated, she is not considered \u201canother man\u2019s wife,\u201d and the punishment of strangulation does not apply. There shall be an indemnity. Rather, \u201can investigation.\u201d For a verb from the same root, see \u201cthe priest need not look\u201d (13:36). This is how Dunash and Menahem explained it. The court must investigate. If she has not been given her freedom, they cannot condemn them to death, for she is not technically \u201canother man\u2019s wife.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Who is a slave. Those who deny tradition say this means a non-Jewish slave. But the straightforward sense of the verse must correctly refer to the situation described in Exod. 21:7\u201311, \u201cWhen a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as male slaves are\u201d\u2014and that is about a Jewish girl. She is \u201cdesignated\u201d (as Exod. 21:8 says, though using a different Hebrew word than our verse) either for her master or his son, but she is not \u201cengaged\u201d to either of them. That is why our verse adds the qualification that she cannot yet have been given her freedom. Unless she is engaged, as any free woman would be, she is not free. Designated. Though many people think this Hebrew word does mean the same as the word used in Exodus, in my opinion it is connected to the idea of disgrace (which this root indicates elsewhere), indicating her low status as a woman who is a slave and not free. But, again, the situation is that she is an engaged girl\u2014under some man\u2019s authority, but a virgin nonetheless. But has not been redeemed. Neither her father, who sold her into slavery, nor anyone else from the family was able to redeem her before she attained maturity. Or given her freedom. The custom was to write her out a certificate of emancipation if her father had sold her for a specified period. Our tradition, however, says that the woman discussed in this passage is one who is half slave and half free, and that is the truth. There shall be an indemnity. Some commentators translate this as \u201cShe shall be a concubine\u201d! They base themselves on Ps. 45:10, \u201cRoyal princesses are your favorites,\u201d since the two words sound alike: bikrotekha in Psalms and bikoret in our verse. But this is incorrect. The Psalms word is from the root \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8, with the \u05d9 changing from a consonant to a vowel because of the change in vocalization made necessary when the prefix is added, while our word comes from \u05d1\u05e7\u05e8. The Psalms word is simply following the normal grammatical rules that apply to such a word everywhere else in Biblical Hebrew (except for once in Dan. 12:2, and even there only according to the vocalization of Ben Naphtali \u2014but that masoretic dispute has no bearing on our comment). Others (followed by OJPS) take our word to mean \u201cinvestigation,\u201d following the meaning of this root in 13:36, \u201cthe priest shall examine him.\u201d But our tradition says he is to get a \u201chiding\u201d with a strap of cowhide, bakar. And this is the truth, known from the words of tradition; the word in our verse serves as a kind of mnemonic aid for this rule. As to what this rule is doing here\u2014the man who has relations with her is in some sense defrauding her master, which is why he must bring \u201ca ram of guilt offering\u201d (v. 21). One might also midrashically describe this as another kind of prohibited \u201cmixture\u201d: free man with slave woman.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
And has been designated for another man. Rashi says that he does not know any other example of this word used to mean \u201cdesignated\u201d anywhere in the Bible. It seems to me to be related to \u201cWhen I was in my prime\u201d (Job 29:4, meaning \u201cmy youth\u201d) and to \u201cI shall be free of youthful foolishness as long as I live\u201d (Job 27:6). A noun from the same root refers to \u201cwinter,\u201d which is at the beginning of the year, leading to the metaphor of winter as youth. Similarly old age is likened to summer with its ingathering of the ripened crops. Here, the reference is to a woman who is a \u201chandmaiden,\u201d that is, both young and in service to him. With males as well it is common to refer to one\u2019s servant as his \u201cboy.\u201d And note the idiom of rabbinic Hebrew that refers to a woman who sleeps with a man as \u201cservicing\u201d him. So the woman in our verse is the man\u2019s \u201cgirl\u201d and is intimate with him, what we call in Spanish mancipada, \u201censlaved.\u201d The Aramaic term used in rabbinic literature carries the same meaning. The point is that, though she is not his full wife, he has ritually sanctified their relationship in some partial fashion. There shall be an indemnity. All of the other commentators agree with Rashi that this word really means \u201cinquisition,\u201d in which case the phrase means that the matter must be inquired into closely to see whether the rules against intercourse with another man\u2019s wife have been violated. But this explanation leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Obviously the court under any circumstances will closely inquire into a matter rather than put someone to death gratuitously. In my opinion, this root \u05d1\u05e7\u05e8 is actually a variant of \u05e4\u05e7\u05e8, the root referring to \u201cownerlessness.\u201d Though this variant is unique in the Bible, it is quite common in rabbinic Hebrew (in fact, in the Mishnah it is more common) and in Aramaic as well. For \u05d1 and \u05e4 interchange with some frequency. (On this, see further my comment to Exod. 15:10.) Our phrase, then, really means \u201cShe is to be considered unbound\u201d with respect to him. They shall therefore not \u2026 be put to death as adulterers are, for she is not free to be the man\u2019s lawful wife. Instead, the one who has relations with her \u201cmust bring \u2026 a ram of guilt offering\u201d (v. 21) for what he has done, for she is the other man\u2019s \u201chandmaiden.\u201d The translation of Onkelos in fact follows this interpretation as well.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Designated for another man. Rather, \u201cshamed\u201d by a man, having had sexual intercourse, which is shameful to us because it is part of our animal side rather than our human side; or perhaps \u201clowered,\u201d since winter (a related word in Hebrew) is the time when the sun is \u201clowered\u201d in the sky as seen from the inhabited parts of the earth (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:21\u201322<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The sin that he committed will be forgiven him. Since we have just been told that expiation was made for him \u201cfor the sin that he committed,\u201d the repetition of the phrase seems redundant. We therefore interpret it to mean that the rule about bringing a guilt offering applies to one who commits this sin deliberately as well as to one who has carnal relations with her without realizing that she has been designated for someone else.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Will be forgiven him. I will explain this in my comment to Num. 14:19.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:23\u201324<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since the rule about not eating the fruit of a new tree during the first three years is meant to be observed \u201cwhen you enter the land\u201d (v. 23), just like all the other agricultural laws, why do we still observe it outside the land?
\n\u2666 Why do these rules apply to trees and not to other plants?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall regard its fruit as forbidden. More literally, \u201cyou shall leave the foreskin of that fruit uncircumcised,\u201d stopped up and blocked. You are blocked from benefiting from it in any way. Three years it shall be forbidden for you. When do the three years begin? When it is planted. One might think the fruit produced during these three years would eventually be permissible if he set it aside until the three years were over. That is why the text says not \u201cit is forbidden for you,\u201d but \u201cit shall be forbidden\u201d\u2014the fruit produced during those three years remains forbidden forever.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall regard its fruit as forbidden. \u201cLeaving the foreskin uncircumcised,\u201d as it literally says, refers to stoppage, blockage, avoidance. \u201cTheir ears are blocked\u201d (Jer. 6:10); \u201cuncircumcised in spirit\u201d (Ezek. 44:9).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When you enter the land and plant any tree for food. Having discussed sowing a field with seed and (as it were) sowing a woman with seed, the text now turns to the sowing of fruit trees. You shall regard its fruit as forbidden. When first planted, the fruit of such a tree is to be considered \u201clike a foreskin\u201d (as the Hebrew metaphor goes on to say). It is well explained by Onkelos: \u201cit should be removed and destroyed.\u201d Three years it shall be forbidden for you, not to be eaten. It is well known that the fruit produced before a tree is three years old is worthless. In fact, it can be as harmful to the body as sea creatures that have no fins or scales. Similarly, the wise soul is damaged by the meat of birds of prey and that of unclean animals. One who is enlightened will understand.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall regard its fruit as forbidden. See the comment of Rashi, who explains it nicely. One who is \u201cuncircumcised in spirit\u201d (Ezek. 44:9; literally, \u201cin heart\u201d) would, therefore, be someone who is close minded; indeed, we find Hosea saying, \u201cLike a bear robbed of her young I attack them and rip open the casing [literally, the closing] of their hearts\u201d (Hosea 13:8). Jeremiah too refers to one whose ears are \u201cblocked\u201d (Jer. 6:10) with the metaphor \u201cuncircumcised,\u201d blocked off so that no sound can enter there. Moses was famously \u201ca man of uncircumcised lips,\u201d that is, impeded speech (Exod. 6:12), for speech impediments are caused by a blockage of the muscles of the tongue and (sometimes) the lips. Speech, by contrast, is likened to opening. When Prov. 31:8 tells us, \u201cSpeak up for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate,\u201d what it literally says is \u201cOpen your mouth!\u201d Similarly, in Job 3:1, after sitting silent for seven days, Job at last \u201copened his mouth\u201d and spoke. But this same metaphor of \u201copening\u201d is used for the development of fruit: \u201cLet us go early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine has flowered, if its blossoms have opened\u201d (Song 7:13). That is why the fruit of a new tree is described as \u201cblocked, unopened\u201d for use during its first three years\u2014a metaphor that is not used for anything else we are forbidden to enjoy. Three years it shall be forbidden for you. It shall be \u201cuncircumcised,\u201d as if the fruit remained closed up on the tree, without budding or blossoming. The point of this commandment is that we should honor God by bringing a year\u2019s worth of our produce to Him (see v. 24) before we ourselves begin to use it. But the fruit of the first three years is not fit to offer to God, for in those years the crop is small and tasteless; most of the trees will not even bring forth fruit at all until the fourth year. So we wait for them all, and taste none of it until we have brought all of the first good fruits of our planting as a sacred offering before the Lord. There, at last, they would eat it and praise the name of God. This commandment resembles that which indeed (in English translation) is always referred to as \u201cthe first fruits,\u201d that is, the first of the harvest. The truth of the matter is further that when a tree is first planted, its fruit retains too much moisture. This is both bad to the taste and bad for the health\u2014like the flesh of a fish without scales. The foods that are forbidden by the Torah are indeed bad for the body. Maimonides discusses this in Guide 3:37, following his theory about most of the commandments. For the magicians and sorcerers of that era had various kinds of witchcraft that they would perform when trees were planted, which they thought would make the tree produce fruit faster than it ordinarily would in the normal course of things. When the fruit did arrive, they would offer it to the idol in whose name they had performed the \u201cmagic.\u201d That is why the Torah forbade any fruit that grew during the first three years\u2014so that no one would be tempted to perform such evil practices (for most trees will produce fruit in their fourth year even without them) and so that we should honor God by eating the fruit before Him, rather than before idols as they did.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When you enter the land and plant any tree for food. This rule, being at least partly directed against idolatry, applies outside of Israel as well; it is introduced here with \u201cwhen you enter the land\u201d because at the time it was given they were in the desert, thirsting for fresh fruit (Abarbanel). Three years it shall be forbidden for you, not to be eaten. It is not polite to eat it before you have given any of it to God (Bekhor Shor). The three years begin to be counted on the day the tree is planted (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In the fourth year all its fruit shall be set aside. Literally, it \u201cshall be holy\u201d (OJPS). It is sanctified as the second tithe referred to in 27:30, \u201cAll tithes from the land, whether seed from the ground or fruit from the tree, are the LORD\u2019S; they are holy to the LORD.\u201d A tithe \u201cfrom the ground\u201d cannot be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem unless it has been redeemed, and neither can this fruit. For jubilation before the LORD. More precisely, \u201cfor giving praise\u201d (OJPS) to the Lord. For one takes this fruit to Jerusalem in order to praise the Lord for the blessings He has bestowed.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In the fourth year all its fruit shall be set aside for jubilation before the LORD. Rather, it \u201cshall be holy, for giving praise\u201d (OJPS): \u201cHoly\u201d just like the second tithe, meaning that it must be eaten in Jerusalem \u201cfor giving praise\u201d to one\u2019s Creator. For we are told of the second tithe that \u201cYou shall consume the tithes of your new grain and wine and oil, and the firstlings of your herds and flocks, in the presence of the LORD your God, in the place where He will choose to establish His name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God forever\u201d (Deut. 14:23).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Its fruit shall be set aside for jubilation before the LORD. Rather, it \u201cshall be holy, for giving praise unto the LORD\u201d (OJPS)\u2014the priest shall eat it.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:25\u201326<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are the commandments of vv. 26\u201336, which seem to be a random collection, included here?
\n\u2666 Why are the rules against divination (vv. 26 and 31) not given in the same order as they are in Deut. 18:10\u201311, and why are they separated (here) by other, intervening laws?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
That its yield to you may be increased. The effect of observing this commandment will be to increase your yield. For as a reward I, the Lord, will bless the fruit from this planting for you. R. Akiva used to say: The Torah said this as an argument to be used against one\u2019s evil inclination, so that no one should say, \u201cThat makes four years that I have to spend taking care of these plants for nothing!\u201d I the LORD am your God. I, the Lord, make you this promise, and I can be relied on to keep My promises.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
That its yield to you may be increased. You will earn this if you do as I have commanded.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
That its yield to you may be increased. The fruit of the fourth year shall be set aside as \u201choly, for jubilation before the LORD\u201d (v. 24) so that its yield to you may be increased. Admittedly these two phrases are somewhat far apart in the text. But see Exod. 22:2 for another such example. And there are many more. I the LORD am your God. I can bless your yield and increase it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
That its yield to you may be increased. \u201cIts yield\u201d is literally \u201cits coming,\u201d that is, what it will produce in the coming year (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not eat anything with its blood. Literally, \u201cyou shall not eat over the blood.\u201d This expression has been interpreted in many different ways on B. Sanh. 63a: as a commandment not to eat the meat of sacrificial offerings before their blood has been dashed against the altar; as a commandment not to eat the meat of an animal before the animal itself has died; and in many other ways. You shall not practice divination. This refers to divining omens by (e.g.) observing the activities of weasels or birds, or other such superstitions: \u201cHis bread fell out of his mouth\u201d; \u201cA deer crossed his path.\u201d Soothsaying. The word t\u2019onenu is related not to anah, \u201canswer,\u201d as the translations seem to think, but to onah, \u201cseason\u201d or \u201ctime.\u201d This practice involves declaring the appropriate times for certain actions: \u201cSuch-and-such a day would be a good time to start your project\u201d; \u201csuch-and-such an hour will be a difficult time to leave on a journey.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall not eat anything with its blood. The straightforward sense is the one that fits the context: You shall not practice divination or soothsaying. \u201cEating with the blood\u201d is one aspect of this, following the practices of the gentiles, who eat blood over the grave of a murdered man as a kind of sorcery to prevent his taking revenge or some similar kind of witchcraft (as when we talk about \u201ca gallows nail\u201d). Our Sages give a number of explanations for this phrase on B. Sanh. 63a.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not eat anything with its blood. Just as one cannot eat the fruit of a newly planted tree until the fifth year, so too one may not eat meat \u201cwith the blood\u201d (OJPS), that is, before the animal\u2019s blood has been dashed against the altar of the Lord (if one lives close enough to the holy place). The proof is the incident where \u201cit was reported to Saul that the troops were sinning against the LORD, eating with the blood\u201d (1 Sam. 14:33)\u2014for he had the Ark with him and it would have been perfectly possible to offer this blood on the altar, but they did not. Under such circumstances, it was as if they were eating meat from sacrifices offered to the demons. As I have explained in my comment to 17:7, that was their custom in Egypt, to offer sacrifices in the name of the demons. When Saul\u2019s soldiers failed to dash the blood against the altar of the Lord, it was quite clear what was going on. You shall not practice divination or soothsaying. The connection is that in Egypt they would eat \u201cwith the blood\u201d and whore after the demons, while in Canaan they would practice divination and soothsaying. (See Deut. 18:9\u201314.) The practice called \u201cdivination\u201d involved observation and interpretation of various shapes and signs and portents, manipulating sticks, and determining lucky and unlucky times. With regard to \u201csoothsaying,\u201d some take the Hebrew verb, t\u2019onenu, to come from the verb anah, meaning \u201crespond.\u201d What the \u201csoothsayer\u201d would do is think of a question and then listen carefully to hear how whoever was speaking would \u201crespond\u201d to it with an unwitting oracle. But grammatically this etymology is impossible. Others think it relates to onah, the word for \u201cseason\u201d or \u201ctime,\u201d as in Exod. 21:10. But I think it is actually related to anan, \u201ccloud.\u201d It is well known that there are some people who predict the future by looking at the shapes and movements of the clouds. The grammatical form used in Deut. 18:10 would seem to confirm that this is from the root \u05e2\u05e0\u05df and not from \u05e2\u05e0\u05d4.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not eat anything with its blood. It would follow from the talmudic source cited by Rashi that all of the prohibitions enumerated there are forbidden by our one verse in the Torah. With regard to the story in 1 Samuel 14 about Saul\u2019s troops \u201ceating with the blood\u201d (1 Sam. 14:33), presumably they were eating the flesh before the animals had died. Note that according to the previous verse, they \u201cpounced\u201d on the spoil, where the Hebrew uses a verb etymologically related to the word for a bird of prey. They had captured so many animals that they simply poured the blood out onto the ground, tore off the limbs, and ate where they stood. But the straightforward sense of the verse is that this is another magical practice, as we learn from the context. They would pour out the blood and collect it in a hollow in the ground, leading the demons to gather there (as they imagined) to eat at their table (as it were) and tell them the future. When the Israelites were in camp with Saul, they were tremendously afraid of the Philistines, and Saul could not make a move without inquiring of the Urim and Thummim. That is what the priest meant by telling him, \u201cLet us approach God here\u201d (1 Sam. 14:36). Meanwhile, the rest of the army was inquiring of demons (to know what would happen to them) by means of this \u201ceating with the blood.\u201d This explains what Saul meant in 1 Sam. 14:33 by accusing them of acting \u201ctreacherously\u201d\u2014the Lord has given you this great victory today, and you are turning to inquire from these un-gods! It is treachery! You shall not practice divination or soothsaying. I will explain this elsewhere.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not eat anything with its blood. Literally, not \u201cover\u201d the blood; you shall not eat the fruit of a tree planted in blood as part of an idolatrous ceremony (Abarbanel). You shall not practice divination. For example, sticking a knife in a loaf of bread and making it appear that the bread shakes when the suspect approaches it (Gersonides). Or soothsaying. Predicting which times are lucky or unlucky leads people to believe that the universe is ruled by chance. But if there is a rational reason for the prediction, no \u201csoothsaying\u201d is involved (Gersonides). You shall not rely on omens or superstitions to decide when to plant the trees (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:27\u201329<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are most of the commandments in this section given in the plural (\u201cYe\u201d in OJPS), but two (v. 27 and v. 29) in the singular (\u201cthou\u201d)?
\n\u2666 Why is \u201cDo not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot\u201d (v. 29) not given in ch. 18 with the other rules about sexual behavior?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:27<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not round off the side-growth on your head. This refers to making the temples as hairless as the forehead or the skin behind the ears. The result is that the head is surrounded with a circle, for behind the ears the hairline is much higher than at the temples. The side-growth of your beard. The end of the beard and its five corners: two at each temple; two at the other side of the cheek; and one beneath, under the chin, where the two cheeks come together.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not round off the side-growth on your head. As the gentiles do. The point is to be able to be distinguished from them. Since the hair of the head and the beard were created to beautify the person, it is not seemly to destroy it. But some think this verse is connected with v. 28, for this \u201crounding off\u201d or destroying \u201cthe side-growth\u201d was also done \u201cfor the dead.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not round off the side-growth on your head. As do the idolatrous priests. It is an insult to the King for His servants to be seen disfigured in this way (Bekhor Shor). One should not even things out as if everything were the same. Rather, it is important to distinguish and understand differences. The failure to do this ultimately leads to the belief that nothing exists but the material world (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:28<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Gashes in your flesh for the dead. The Amorites actually practiced this, gashing their flesh in mourning for someone who had died. Any marks. This \u201cka\u2019aka writing\u201d (as the text literally says) refers to a mark that is shaku\u2019a, \u201csunk,\u201d into one\u2019s flesh in such a way that it cannot be removed. One sticks the flesh with a needle and permanently darkens it. The same root is found in \u201cTake all the ringleaders and have them publicly impaled before the LORD\u201d (Num. 25:4) and \u201clet seven of his male issue be handed over to us, and we will impale them before the LORD in Gibeah\u201d (2 Sam. 21:6). In plain English\u2014a tattoo.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Gashes. Our tradition has passed down the rules that apply in this case, just as with \u201crounding off the side-growth.\u201d For the dead. Literally, \u201cfor the soul.\u201d But what it means is of course for the dead body. That is how Onkelos translates it, and that is the truth. (Note that the expected dagesh in the \u05e0 is omitted for ease of pronunciation.) Marks. Some think this is forbidden for the same reason as the gashes\u2014because some people would burn a certain symbol into their skin in memory of the dead person. Even today some young people burn permanently recognizable marks into their faces. The Hebrew word is related to the verb meaning \u201cpierce,\u201d with its last two consonants doubled. Onkelos, however, translates it here with the unique meaning \u201cincised marks,\u201d and he is absolutely correct.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead. More precisely, \u201cyou shall not make a gash\u201d\u2014each gash constitutes a separate violation. But this applies only to a gash \u201cfor the dead,\u201d not to gashing yourself if your house has collapsed or your ship sunk in the sea (Hizkuni). Or incise any marks on yourselves. You shall incise no mark on your flesh except for the mark of the covenant (Sforno). I am the LORD. I am too great a King for you to do something so stupid as to tattoo My name on your flesh (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:29<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot. Literally, do not \u201cprofane\u201d your daughter (see OJPS) by handing her over to someone for intercourse without benefit of clergy. Lest the land fall into harlotry. If you do so, the earth will produce its fruit elsewhere, but not in your land. Similarly, \u201cWhere have they not lain with you? You waited for them on the roadside like a bandit in the wilderness. And you defiled the land with your whoring and your debauchery. And when showers were withheld and the late rains did not come, you had the brazenness of a street woman, you refused to be ashamed\u201d (Jer. 3:3).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
And make her a harlot. Making her available like a prostitute.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not degrade your daughter. By marking her flesh with gashes for the dead, for all to see. For if a woman\u2019s voice is sexually provocative (as the rabbinic saying has it), how much the more so is this. Lest the land fall into harlotry. Not, of course, literally \u201cthe land,\u201d but the people who dwell there. God uses the same figure of speech when he tells Ezekiel, \u201cO mortal, if a land were to sin against Me and commit a trespass \u2026\u201d (Ezek. 14:13).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot. I do not understand what Rashi means by his comment. A woman who is not spoken for cannot be a \u201charlot\u201d according to the Torah. It is a clear rule of Jewish law that an unattached man who has intercourse with an unattached woman, not intending to consummate a marital relationship, nonetheless does not turn her into a \u201charlot\u201d by so doing. B. Sanh. 50b says so explicitly in its analysis of 21:9, and the same applies to 21:7 according to B. Yev. 61b (and see also Deut. 23:19, with the rabbinic discussion of that verse). The sources on which Rashi bases his comment may either be following the opinion of R. Eliezer (which is not the law) or may have in mind one who hands his daughter over to a man to whom she could not legally be married under any circumstances. Lest the land fall into harlotry. Not \u201cthe people of the land,\u201d but \u201cthe land\u201d itself. This is what leads to the interpretation of the Sifra, cited by Rashi. But the essential point is that this phrase is actually a separate commandment (and the Halakhot Gedolot indeed counts it that way), prohibiting the girl herself (and the man who sleeps with her) from participating in harlotry or as the Sifra has it in any sexual relationship that does not involve marriage. While the girl is still a minor, her father is responsible for bringing her under the wedding canopy, and one who rapes or seduces her must pay his fine to her father. So the verse prohibits him from turning her over to anyone with whom she would have a promiscuous relationship. The verse then continues to extend the prohibition of such a relationship to the participants themselves. Rashi explains the \u201cwoman defiled by harlotry\u201d of 21:7 to refer to a woman who has slept with a Jew, but one prohibited to her. By saying this, he is essentially admitting that a woman intrinsically cannot commit harlotry with a man she would be permitted to marry. However, he adds to the \u201charlotry\u201d category men to whom she is forbidden by no more than a prohibition. He follows this same theory in his Talmud commentaries. But it is simply not correct. She becomes a harlot by sleeping with someone whose relationship with her would carry a penalty of cutting off, but not by sleeping with someone whose relationship with her is merely forbidden. In the latter case, she is simply made ineligible to marry a priest or (if she is a priest\u2019s daughter) to eat the sacred gifts (as when she marries a layman; see 22:12).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot. By failing to marry her off once she comes of age (Hizkuni). And the land be filled with depravity. If you make your daughter a harlot, she will not know who has made her pregnant and the ultimate result will be that people all over the land will inadvertently be committing incest (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:30\u201332<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does v. 30 repeat \u201cYou shall keep My sabbaths,\u201d which we have already been told in v. 3?
\n\u2666 What is the connection between \u201cDo not turn to ghosts\u201d (v. 31) and \u201cYou shall rise before the aged\u201d (v. 32), which seem to be unrelated?
\n\u2666 Why don\u2019t all of the commandments here end with \u201cI am the LORD\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why is this phrase sometimes \u201cI the LORD am your God,\u201d and why is it sometimes elsewhere than at the end of a verse?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary. You should not enter the holy area carrying a walking stick or a purse, wearing shoes, or with dust on your feet. But even though I caution you so strictly about the holiness of My sanctuary, do not think that building the sanctuary overrides observing the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall keep My sabbaths. In context, this is included to show that keeping the Sabbath overrides the obligation to mourn for the dead. Venerate My sanctuary. Similarly, the High Priest is forbidden to mourn, but must remain on duty in the sanctuary. The same applies to all priests who are actually on duty in the sanctuary. I am the LORD. If they fail to venerate His sanctuary and give Him honor, He will punish them.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall keep My sabbaths. As with idolatry, there are many, many repetitions of the commandment to keep the Sabbath throughout the Torah. For (like the prohibition of idolatry) the Sabbath commandment is considered to be as important as all the other commandments combined. One who does not keep the Sabbath denies God\u2019s act of creation and does not accept the Torah at all! Venerate My sanctuary. Our Sages, in the Sifra, interpret the juxtaposition midrashically: Perhaps the construction of the sanctuary overrides the commandment not to work on the Sabbath? No, \u201cyou shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary.\u201d But the True interpretation of this verse is that it is about the Great Sabbath, that is, the Sabbath which itself is His sanctuary, commanding that it be both \u201ckept\u201d and \u201cvenerated.\u201d So of course the construction of the sanctuary on earth does not override the Sabbath, which is His sanctuary on high. If you are enlightened, you will understand.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary. If you perform the sacrifices properly, they indeed supersede the Sabbath; if you perform them improperly, they are of no account and the labor involved in them violates the Sabbath (Bekhor Shor). I am the Creator, not the idols worshiped by the other nations, so you must venerate My sanctuary and not attend those of the false gods (Abarbanel). \u201cMy sabbaths\u201d here refers to the seventh day and the other sacred occasions; \u201cMy sanctuary\u201d refers to any place dedicated to study, prayer, or the service of God (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do not turn to ghosts and do not inquire of familiar spirits. The verse prohibits the practices themselves, not merely consulting such a practitioner. One who \u201cturns\u201d to a ghost (like the Greek \u201cpython\u201d) speaks out of his armpit; one \u201cturns\u201d to a \u201cfamiliar spirit\u201d (yid\u2019oni) by placing the bone of a yado\u2019a (a kind of animal) inside one\u2019s mouth, from which location the bone speaks. To be defiled by them. For clarity, NJPS omits the words \u201cseek them not out\u201d (OJPS). Do not engage in such practices. If you do, you defile yourselves before Me and I will hold you in abhorrence. I the LORD am your God. Understand whom you are exchanging for whom.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Ghosts. The Hebrew word is found also in \u201cMy belly is like wine not yet opened, like skins of new wine ready to burst\u201d (Job 32:19). For that is how the trick is done. Familiar spirits. The Hebrew word, yid\u2019onim, is derived from yada, \u201cto know.\u201d People inquire of these \u201cfamiliar spirits\u201d because they want to know the future. Again, the context is involvement with the dead, as we know from Isa. 8:19, which equates inquiring \u201cof the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan\u201d with inquiring \u201cof the dead on behalf of the living.\u201d Now, there are some mush-brained people who think that if ghosts and such-like magic did not actually work, the text would not bother to forbid them. But I say exactly the opposite. The text does not forbid truth, but falsehood. The proof is what the text says about idols and false gods; see my comment to v. 4. If it were not for the fact that I do not wish to lengthen my commentary unduly, I would provide you with a complete explanation of the story of the woman of En-dor who \u201cconsulted ghosts.\u201d In any case, it is forbidden both to turn to them and to inquire of them (as Saul inquired of the woman of En-dor in 1 Samuel 28). To be defiled by them. One who does turn to them or inquire of them is defiled, for he is not adhering to the Lord. I the LORD am your God. You must not inquire of any but the Lord alone.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not turn to ghosts and do not inquire of familiar spirits. If you must inquire about the future, \u201cshow deference to the old\u201d (v. 32), the sages and prophets who are the elders of the generation; unlike the \u201cghosts\u201d and \u201cfamiliar spirits,\u201d they will guide you truthfully (Abarbanel). The Hebrew verb for \u201cturn\u201d implies that one should not turn one\u2019s face to them\u2014rather, one should turn one\u2019s back (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall rise before the aged. Even one who is disreputable? No, show deference to the old\u2014you need only rise before one to whom deference is due, one who is \u201cold,\u201d zaken\u2014zeh kana \u1e25okhmah, one who has acquired wisdom. And how does one show this \u201cdeference\u201d? By not sitting in his place and not contradicting him. You shall fear your God. One might close his eyes and pretend not to see the old person, in which case what he did would be known only to himself. In such cases, the text always warns, \u201cyou shall fear your God.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old. This follows naturally, for the aged are close to death, having bodies that can almost be considered dead already. Note that this statement applies to all of the aged (really the Hebrew says \u201cgray hair\u201d) and all of the old. You shall fear your God. Lest He punish you in the days of your own old age.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall rise before the aged. Rashi takes his comment from the Sifra; it is taught as well on B. Kid. 32b. According to both of them, the commandment of respect for the aged would apply only to one who is learned. Onkelos\u2019s translation implies that he shares this understanding. But the legal ruling that results from the talmudic discussion does not say this. Rather, it applies to anyone who is aged, even one who is disreputable or illiterate. Show deference to the old. It is this apparent repetition that expresses the command to show respect for one who has learning\u2014and that is so even if he is a mere stripling. This may in fact be what Onkelos intended, taking the phrase about deference to \u201cthe old\u201d to indicate that \u201caged\u201d applies to those experienced in learning as well as those aged in years.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall rise before the aged. The benefit of this is that youths will pay attention to the words of the elderly and learn from their experience (Gersonides). As Prov. 16:31 tells us, \u201cGray hair is a crown of glory; it is attained by the way of righteousness\u201d (Sforno). I am the LORD. Since it is natural for the young to make fun of the old, they must be warned to fear God and show them deference\u2014else they themselves will not live to old age (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:33\u201336<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not wrong him. We will see further references to \u201cwronging\u201d someone in ch. 25. The \u201cwronging\u201d mentioned in our verse refers specifically to hurting the stranger by one\u2019s words. One may not say, \u201cLast night you were still an idolater\u2014and now, look, you are coming to learn the Torah that was given to Israel directly from the mouth of the Almighty!\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When a stranger resides with you in your land. Just as one must show deference to the Jewish elderly because of their lack of strength, so too must one not wrong the stranger, for your power is so much greater than his. He is in your land, under your authority.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not wrong him. Not knowing how business is conducted in your country, he is easy to cheat (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:34<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Don\u2019t bring up another person\u2019s flaw when it is one that you yourself possess. I the LORD am your God. The Hebrew uses the plural of \u201cyour\u201d\u2014\u201cI am the God of both of you, your God and his God, too.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall love him as yourself. See my comment to v. 18.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall love him as yourself. As if he were a citizen, one of you (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:35<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not falsify measures. Literally, \u201cYe shall do no unrighteousness in judgment\u201d (OJPS), but the exact same words are already found in v. 15. So here they must carry some other meaning. What sort of \u201cjudgment\u201d is involved in our verse? As NJPS correctly indicates, it refers to judgment of measures. In fact, it is from this verse that we learn that one who measures something is considered to be \u201cjudging\u201d it, and that falsification of measures is the moral equivalent of perverting justice. (For the implications of this word \u201cunrighteousness,\u201d see my comment to v. 15.) Such falsification of measures causes the same five things that perversion of justice causes: it makes the land unclean, profanes the Name of God, repels the Shekhinah, subjects Israel to military defeat, and exiles them from their land. Length. More precisely, this refers to land measurement. Capacity. That is, measure of dry or liquid volumes.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Capacity. The Hebrew word refers to a liquid measure. As M. Avot 6:4 says, quoting Ezek. 4:11, \u201cAnd you shall drink water by measure.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not falsify measures. In context, this too is specifically for the benefit of the stranger. \u201cDecide justly between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger\u201d (Deut. 1:16). But the Hebrew can also be understood to mean \u201cYou shall not deviate from the standard measures of the country.\u201d Length. Length measurements require a special warning because the cubit varies in length from place to place.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Capacity. The Hebrew word is in fact the name of a specific measure, 1\/33 of a log; if you must take care to be honest with a measure this small, how much more must you do so with a larger measure (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:36<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Honest weights. Literally, \u201chonest stones.\u201d These are the weights that are placed on the opposite pan of the balance. An honest ephah. This is the dry measure. An honest hin. This is the liquid measure. Who freed you from the land of Egypt. On condition that you have these honest measures. Another reading: I am the One who, in Egypt, evaluated each drop of semen to determine whether the child it produced was a first-born or not. So I can be relied on to punish someone who secretly stores his weights in salt to make them heavier, cheating people who are not familiar with this trick.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
An honest balance, honest weights. As the translations recognize, these \u201cstones\u201d (as the Hebrew literally says) and the balance refer to the \u201cweight\u201d category of v. 35. An honest ephah, and an honest hin. The \u201ccapacity\u201d category, for dry and liquid measures respectively. I the LORD am your God who freed you from the land of Egypt. You must strive to fulfill the laws that I have placed before you, for they are all just. \u201cYou were strangers in the land of Egypt\u201d (v. 34) and are therefore obligated to keep My laws and My rules in your hearts and do them.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:37\u201320:3<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the text condemn \u201canyone who gives of his offspring to Molech\u201d (v. 2), but not one who gives himself to Molech?
\n\u2666 Since such a man \u201cshall be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt him with stones,\u201d what sense does it make to say afterward that \u201cI will set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people\u201d (v. 3)?
\n\u2666 Why is this man said to have \u201cdefiled My sanctuary and profaned My holy name,\u201d a combination that is found in connection with no other type of idolatry?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19:37<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall faithfully observe all My laws and all My rules. All of which are summarized here (Hizkuni). Observe that they are indeed sensible, and then do them faithfully (Sforno). I am the LORD. And you must neither add anything to My rules nor take anything away from them (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:1<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses. The previous chapter was addressed (via Moses) \u201cto the whole Israelite community\u201d (19:2) because the commandments given there apply only to them and not to \u201cthe stranger.\u201d But the new chapter will describe the punishments for sexual immorality, and these apply to anyone who lives in the land of Israel, citizen or stranger.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Say further to the Israelite people. Tell them the punishments for violating the prohibitions I have already issued. Shall be put to death. By a court. The people of the land shall pelt him with stones. If the court is unable to do so, the people of the land shall assist them. The Israelites are here referred to as \u201cthe people of the land\u201d or (alternatively) \u201cof the world\u201d because they are the people for whose sake the world was created, the people who are going to establish their possession of the land of Canaan through their observance of these commandments.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Who gives any of his offspring to Molech. The text begins with the worst offense of the whole chapter. It refers to sleeping with a woman who worships idols. The people of the land. Of whatever land he lives in, whether as citizen or stranger. Shall pelt him with stones. If he does so publicly. The Hebrew literally says \u201cpelt him with stone,\u201d using the singular generically; see Gen. 32:6 for a similar example. But the words of tradition are correct, and they are true.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Molech. This is a variant of the Hebrew word for \u201cking\u201d and refers to idolatrous worship of the sun, king of the stars; Baal, \u201cmaster,\u201d is another name for the sun as a focus of idolatrous worship (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And I will set My face. Not panai, \u201cMy face,\u201d but p\u2019nai, \u201cMy free time.\u201d I will turn My face aside from My own business and busy Myself with him. Against that man. But not against the public\u2014the whole public will not be cut off for such a sin. Because he gave of his offspring to Molech. Deut. 18:10 says, \u201cLet no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the fire.\u201d How do I know the same applies to one who consigns his grandson or granddaughter to the fire? From our verse, which mentions (more generally) \u201chis offspring.\u201d The repetition of this phrase in v. 4 indicates that even illegitimate offspring are included in the prohibition. And so defiled My sanctuary. Rather, \u201cwhat is sacred to Me\u201d (21:23)\u2014the Assembly of Israel.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will set My face against that man. If he does so in secret. And will cut him off from among his people. Some think this means cutting off his offspring. And so defiled My sanctuary. Which is also in the land of Israel. Profaned My holy name. When the other nations hear about it.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
And so defiled My sanctuary. As Rashi points out, this really refers to defiling the Assembly of Israel. I have already alluded (in my comment to 18:21) to the fact that the Assembly of Israel, which is sanctified to His great name, can be tainted by the sin of a single person. The midrash alludes to this as well: \u201cAnyone who derives enjoyment from this world without reciting a blessing is like one who robs from the Holy One and from the Assembly of Israel. This can be learned from Prov. 28:24: \u2018He who robs his father and mother and says, \u201cIt is no offense,\u201d is a companion to vandals.\u2019 His \u2018father\u2019 is the Holy One, his \u2018mother\u2019 is the Assembly of Israel, and he is a \u2018companion\u2019 to Jeroboam son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin against their Father in heaven.\u201d What He wanted was for people to bless His great name for His creation, thereby ensuring the continued existence of the world. If they should not do so, He would rise with His great name, and the Shekhinah would depart from Israel. If the Shekhinah would depart from Israel because a blessing was omitted, how much more would it depart if someone should offer the fruit of his loins to Molech, leading God to \u201cloathe the Pride of Jacob\u201d (Amos 6:8) and its Tabernacle. That is why \u201cthe people of the land\u201d must stone him (v. 2, a unique combination)\u2014all of Israel is obligated to stone him, for he is endangering them all by causing the Shekhinah to depart from them. Note that Onkelos translates the expression as \u201cthe people of the House of Israel.\u201d For \u201cthe land\u201d refers to the land of Israel, not to the land on which the offender lives\u2014\u201cfor the land is Mine\u201d (25:23). You can understand more of the mystery behind this from And I will set My face against that man and will cut him off (and see also v. 5). \u201cMy great and awesome Name will cut him off.\u201d Note that in v. 6, with regard to cutting off those who turn to ghosts or familiar spirits, the \u201cI\u201d of \u201cI will set My face against that person\u201d simply derives from the Hebrew verb form. Neither there nor anywhere else that discusses cutting off is the separate pronoun for \u201cI\u201d used, as it is here. As I said, I have already made the reason for this known to all those who understand.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will set My face against that man. I will face him angrily. Since he is a Jew, everyone will assume that whatever he does is something I commanded him to do (Bekhor Shor). Not only is his physical life to be taken from him, but his life in the world of souls will also be cut off from him (Abarbanel). He gave of his offspring to Molech and so defiled My sanctuary. In My sanctuary he offered only animals, but to Molech he offered his own human children, treating My worship with disrespect (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:4\u20138<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What is the point of then repeating \u201cI Myself will set My face against that man\u201d in v. 5?
\n\u2666 Why does God set His face against that man\u2019s family, when it is the man alone who has sinned? Again, there is no such punishment of the family with any other type of idolatry.
\n\u2666 Why did God not say \u201cif any person turns to ghosts and familiar spirits and goes astray after them, I will set My face against that person\u201d (v. 6) when the ghosts and familiar spirits were mentioned in 19:31?
\n\u2666 Why do vv. 7\u20138 occur where they do and not at the end of the whole chapter, where they would seem to belong?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the people of the land should shut their eyes to that man. Note the repetition of the verb in the Hebrew. If they shut their eyes to one thing, they will end up shutting their eyes to many things. If a lower court shuts its eyes, the High Court will end up shutting its eyes too.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I Myself will set My face against that man and his kin. Said R. Simeon: How have his kin sinned? This teaches you that there is no family that has a corrupt member where they are not all corrupt. For they all cover up for him. And will cut off from among their people both him and all who follow him. But \u201chis kin\u201d are not mentioned as being cut off. For he is cut off, but they are not cut off, merely punished by physical afflictions sent from heaven. Going astray after Molech. The repetition indicates that the same applies no matter what idolatrous god he intended to serve\u2014even if this is not the normal way of worshiping that god.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
His kin. According to Ibn Janah (may he rest in Paradise), the text is using \u201chis kin\u201d as English uses \u201chis ilk\u201d\u2014those like him. But what\u2019s the point of getting us into this mess? It means what it says, \u201chis kin\u201d or \u201chis family\u201d (OJPS). The point is that \u201cthe people of the land\u201d might \u201cshut their eyes\u201d (v. 4) to his behavior because they are related to him. All who follow him. For if he is not put to death, others will follow him.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Going astray after Molech. Rashi\u2019s comments both here and to 18:21 do not properly correspond to the talmudic discussion of this question. For if Molech is simply an idol, then \u201cpassing\u201d one\u2019s children through the fire for Molech could not be the way he is worshiped. If that were so, there would be no need to mention it\u2014it would fall into the general category of idolatry, which is forbidden over and over again throughout the Torah, and for which the punishment is given in Deut. 17:2\u20135. We would therefore be forced to interpret the Molech passages as forbidding the specific action of passing one\u2019s offspring through the fire even though this is not how that particular idol is worshiped. According to this analysis, \u201cMolech\u201d would not be the name of a specific idol, but a general name for any such whom one accepts as his divine \u201cking,\u201d melekh. This would explain why the Ammonites called their god Milcom by the name Molech (see 1 Kings 11:5, 7). Rashi\u2019s understanding of the matter can therefore not be correct. How would this particular kind of idolatry differ from any other in the world? (See B. Sanh. 64 for further discussion.) The conclusion of the talmudic discussion, however, follows the opinion that Molech is not worshiped as an idol, but is a kind of sorcery by which they would inquire of the dead on behalf of the living.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
His kin. That is, those who aid and abet him (Bekhor Shor). He assumed his sacrifice to Molech would protect the lives of his kin, but in fact the opposite will happen (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:6<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If any person turns to ghosts and familiar spirits. The same applies to one who turns away from Me to follow ghosts and familiar spirits as to one who gives his offspring to Molech. If the people of the land do not put him to death, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from among his people. Grammatically, the word used here for \u201cperson\u201d is ordinarily feminine. But it is occasionally found as a masculine, as in Ezek. 13:20 and Gen. 46:22. So the masculine pronoun here is not a problem.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall sanctify yourselves. By avoiding idolatry.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I the LORD am your God. I the Lord your God am holy. I have given you these laws to keep in order to sanctify you. We have been told this already: \u201cFor I the LORD am your God: you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy\u201d (11:44). It is repeated here to indicate that strangers who are dwelling among the Israelites must also be holy, for they reside in a holy land.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:8<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall faithfully observe My laws. The reference here is to the laws against idolatry (Hizkuni). If you do not keep yourselves holy by observing these laws, your children will undoubtedly reject them as well; as Ps. 51:7 has it, \u201cIndeed I was born with iniquity; with sin my mother conceived me\u201d (Sforno). I the LORD make you holy. The exact phrase occurs only three other times, in 21:8; 22:32, and Exod. 31:13 (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:9\u201311<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does v. 9 tell us that \u201cIf anyone insults his father or his mother, he shall be put to death,\u201d when this simply repeats what we are told in Exod. 21:17?
\n\u2666 Why is v. 9 presented as a case (\u201cif\u201d) and not a simple statement like the Exodus verse?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He has insulted his father and his mother. The repetition indicates that he is punished even if he insults them after their deaths. His bloodguilt is upon him. This phrase is used here to indicate what it indicates wherever it is used: he is to be killed by stoning. This we learn from v. 27. But the straightforward sense of the phrase is as in Josh. 2:19, \u201chis blood will be on his head\u201d: no one is punished for his death but he himself, for he caused himself to be killed.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
His bloodguilt is upon him. His blood is on his own head. He has condemned himself to death.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If anyone insults his father or his mother. As in 19:3, the actual details of the chapter begin with a rule about one\u2019s parents. In our verse, unlike there, the father is mentioned before the mother out of respect for him. \u201cMother\u201d came first in 19:3 because a young child would recognize only her, but here, where the violator is put to death, we are clearly dealing with someone old enough to be responsible for his actions. He has insulted his father and his mother. The repetition should have been punctuated with an exclamation point! It is saying, \u201cHe has done something abominable!\u201d His bloodguilt is upon him. \u201cHis blood will be on his own head\u201d (Josh. 2:19). This applies both to those who are stoned to death and to those who are strangled. I would make the following generalization about the death penalty: We need our ancestral tradition to tell us how to proceed. From what the text alone says, we could not possibly execute anyone. It does not even record the age at which one becomes a responsible adult.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If anyone insults his father or his mother. If anyone fails to heed the command in 19:3 to revere his mother and his father, and instead insults them, he shall be put to death. But according to the True interpretation, \u201cI the LORD make you holy\u201d (v. 8)\u2014it is He who makes us holy, He who is our Father and our eternal Redeemer; that is His name. Anyone, therefore, who insults His partners in creation deserves death. That is why v. 10, condemning adulterers, immediately follows, before any of the other forbidden sexual relationships. I have already remarked on this in my comment to Exod. 20:13.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If anyone insults his father or his mother, he shall be put to death. How much more so should one be put to death who insults his Father in heaven by giving of his offspring to Molech (Abarbanel). Prov. 1:8 tells us to \u201cheed the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the instruction of your mother\u201d; one who insults them will not accept their instruction and will not keep God\u2019s commandments (Sforno). His bloodguilt is upon him. Literally, \u201chis blood is in him\u201d\u2014he must not live long enough for nourishment to produce more blood; all the blood that is in him now is all there will ever be (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A man. But not an underage boy. Adultery with a married woman. Again, she must be literally \u201canother man\u2019s wife\u201d (OJPS)\u2014not the wife of an underage boy. We learn, then, that an underage boy cannot contract a legal marriage. Committing adultery with another man\u2019s wife. Rather, \u201chis neighbor\u2019s wife\u201d (OJPS)\u2014not the wife of a gentile. For gentile marriages are not recognized by Jewish law. The adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. When the phrase \u201cshall be put to death\u201d is used without additional qualification, they are put to death by strangulation.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Another man\u2019s wife. \u201cHis neighbor\u2019s wife\u201d (OJPS)\u2014not the wife of a gentile.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If a man commits adultery with a married woman. Since (in 18:20) he is prohibited to do this, the following punishment applies. Another man\u2019s wife. Again, it should have been \u201canother man\u2019s wife!\u201d See my comment to v. 9. The repetition emphasizes that he has done something wicked. The adulteress. If the woman was raped, this term does not apply to her.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
At this point, the text lists some of those with whom it is forbidden (on penalty of death) to have sexual relations: another man\u2019s wife (here), one\u2019s father\u2019s wife (v. 11), one\u2019s daughter-in-law (v. 12), a male (v. 13), a woman and her mother (v. 14). But the same applies to a woman and her daughter or granddaughter or any other of her close relations (as mentioned in 18:17) and all the more so to his own close relations, such as his granddaughter (18:10) and, it goes without saying, his own daughter (though rabbinic interpretation derives all of these from the text itself). The passage goes on to mention intercourse with an animal (vv. 15\u201316), a menstruant (v. 18, which adds the additional prohibition of a sexual embrace even if intercourse is not consummated), one\u2019s mother\u2019s or father\u2019s sister (v. 19), one\u2019s uncle\u2019s or brother\u2019s wife (vv. 20 and 21, in both cases condemning them to childlessness whether or not they already have children). There was no need to list all the forbidden relationships, since those that are listed are quite enough to teach us what we need to know.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If a man commits adultery with a married woman. It is understood that a boy of nine years and a day is old enough to commit adultery; but since such a young boy\u2019s seed is not capable of impregnating a woman, he is not considered old enough to marry until the age of 13 and a day (Gersonides). Shall be put to death. Wherever this phrase occurs, it means that they should be put to death by a court; but \u201cshall die\u201d means that they shall die at the hands of heaven (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:11<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is the nakedness of his father that he has uncovered. Again, repetition emphasizes the enormity of his deed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Leviticus 16:9\u201312 ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS \u2666 Why could the incense not have been put on the coals beforehand so that it could be more easily carried \u201cbehind the curtain\u201d (v. 12)? Leviticus 16:9 RASHI Which he is to offer as a sin offering. Rather, \u201che makes it a sin offering.\u201d When he places the lot \u201cfor … <\/p>\n