Leviticus 20:12\u201317<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They have committed incest. The same word is translated as \u201cperversion\u201d in 18:23. But \u201ccorruption\u201d (OJPS) is also at issue, in a very specific sense\u2014they are mixing the seed of the father with that of the son.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They have committed incest. See my comment to 18:23, where the English translations are less accurate than they are here.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
As one lies with a woman. Penetrating, as one sticks a brush in the tube of paint.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The two of them have done an abhorrent thing. Presuming the one who was penetrated was not simply raped.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing. Even though one is actively involved and one only passively, both are equally abhorrent (Bekhor Shor). But only if he does so \u201cas one lies with a woman,\u201d not if there is no penetration (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Both he and they shall be put to the fire. You cannot say that the woman he married first should be burnt, for at that time they were permitted to each other. The \u201cwoman and her mother\u201d whom he marries in this verse must be his mother-in-law and her mother, both of whom would be forbidden to him. But some of our Sages say that the verse refers simply to his wife and his mother-in-law, and it does not say that \u201cthey\u201d shall be burnt, but et-hen, which can also be interpreted as meaning \u201cthe one\u201d of them. For hen is \u201cone\u201d in Greek.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is depravity. Etymologically the word is related to a verb meaning \u201cto think up\u201d something. What this verse is condemning is lustful thoughts. Both he and they shall be put to the fire. Only one of the women is put to the fire. If the mother was his wife, the daughter is put to the fire, and vice versa.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall kill the beast. Though the man has sinned, how has the beast sinned? But since the man stumbled into sin by way of this animal, the text said that it must be stoned. How much the more would this apply to a human being, who can choose between good and evil, but nonetheless does evil to his fellow man by causing him to transgress! By the same logic, when we read that \u201cyou must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped their gods, whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree\u201d (Deut. 12:2), we realize: if a tree, which cannot see or hear, is to be totally destroyed because someone stumbled into sin through it, how much the more so does this apply to someone who deliberately leads another away from the path of life and onto the paths of death.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall kill the beast. So that it will not be the cause of sin in anyone else. But some think the beast is killed in order to conceal the man\u2019s disgrace.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:16<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
To mate with it. The infinitive takes an unusual vowel pattern here (but see 26:26 for a comparable example). The forms of the infinitive can vary greatly.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall kill the woman and the beast. Since the woman cannot force the beast to mate with her, the beast itself has clearly violated the natural order, as did the beasts in the days before Noah\u2019s Flood (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is a disgrace. This word \u1e25esed is not the Hebrew word meaning \u201clove, grace, kindness, loyalty,\u201d but an Aramaic word for \u201cdisgrace.\u201d See Gen. 34:14, \u201cfor that is a disgrace among us,\u201d where Onkelos translates into Aramaic using our word. But a midrash understands \u1e25esed here the normal way by connecting it with Ps. 89:3, \u201cthe world is built up through \u1e25esed.\u201d If you think, as legend has it, that Cain married his sister, you must acknowledge that God permitted this as an act of grace from which the population of the world could be built up.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
It is a disgrace. The same root is used in Prov. 25:10, \u201cLest he who hears it reproach you,\u201d and Prov. 14:34, \u201cSin is a reproach to any people.\u201d (The latter translation is confirmed by the Aramaic rendering of that verse.)<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If a man marries his sister. A man could of course only marry his sister in a place where no one knows them. The assumption is that their relationship becomes known at some later point. So that he sees her nakedness. Rather, \u201cor he sees her nakedness,\u201d that is, \u201cuncovers\u201d it\u2014he simply has sex with her. The vav can indicate \u201cor\u201d as well as \u201cand\u201d (as it does, e.g., in v. 9). She sees his nakedness. In this case, the implication would be that she participated willingly. It is a disgrace. The noun is related to the verb in \u201cLest he who hears it reproach you\u201d (Prov. 25:10). The point is that this is a particularly immoral kind of behavior. He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister. This clause applies if he did so by force. He shall bear his guilt. He alone, if he raped her. The reason for all these different scenarios is that the brother and sister would have grown up together, played together as children, and been alone together over and over again.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If a man marries his sister. A man cannot in fact \u201cmarry\u201d his sister, though this is what the Hebrew means. But what it literally says is \u201cif a man shall take his sister\u201d (OJPS). For, living with her in a single house, if lust should seize him he might take her and pull her to him without the need to go away somewhere as he would have to in order to find a prostitute. The text actually uses this expression \u201ctake\u201d with all of the women with whom he might find himself alone in the house (see vv. 14 and 21, as well as 18:17\u201318 and Deut. 23:1). So that he sees her nakedness. The Torah uses various euphemisms for sexual intercourse. The common idiom of \u201cuncovering nakedness\u201d alludes to the practice of men who engage in immoral sex, whose custom it is to display the nakedness of the women involved. As the Lord threatens Israel, \u201cI will lift up your skirts over your face and display your nakedness to the nations\u201d (Nah. 3:5). At other times, the Torah uses the euphemism of \u201cgoing\u201d or \u201ccoming\u201d: \u201cA man marries a woman and goes unto her\u201d (Deut. 22:13); \u201cOur father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come unto us in the way of all the world\u201d (Gen. 19:31). Similarly, it is often referred to as \u201clying\u201d with someone. Here the idiom used is \u201cseeing.\u201d For a brother and sister might well sleep together, in which case there would be no need to \u201clift up the skirt.\u201d Elsewhere, the idiom of \u201cknowing\u201d is found: \u201cNow the man knew his wife Eve\u201d (Gen. 4:1); \u201cThe maiden was very beautiful, a virgin whom no man had known\u201d (Gen. 24:16). And she sees his nakedness. For she too may secretly harbor the desire to do so. It is understood with all the forbidden sexual relationships that the woman participates willingly, for if she did not she would scream and run away. But in the case of a sister, if her brother is sleeping in the same bed with her he might expose her without her even knowing. So the verse makes explicit reference to the case where she participates willingly. It is a disgrace. The commentators take this word to refer to \u201cdisgrace\u201d as the translations do, though it ordinarily means \u201ckindness, loyalty\u201d and so forth. For it is in the nature of all human beings to feel shame at a sin so ugly. This meaning of the word is more common in Aramaic (see the Aramaic translations to Gen. 34:14 and 1 Sam. 11:2), but it is also found in Prov. 25:10 and in rabbinic Hebrew. They shall be excommunicated\u2014literally, \u201ccut off\u201d\u2014in the sight of their kinsfolk. It is as much as to say, \u201cYou may do this in secret, but the Lord will uncover your sin when He brings punishment upon you in the sight of all your kinsfolk.\u201d That is, they will die in their youth, so \u201cthat men may see and know, consider and comprehend that the LORD\u2019S hand has done this, that the Holy One of Israel has wrought it\u201d (Isa. 41:20). As elsewhere in the Torah, the punishment of cutting off is found here in connection with a sin that is committed privately in profound secrecy. He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister, he shall bear his guilt. Ibn Ezra explains that if he violated her forcibly, he alone shall bear the guilt. In my opinion, however, it is stating that, since he has uncovered the nakedness of his sister, each of them shall bear the guilt, as in (for example) v. 19. The sin will cling to them from that moment on\u2014their deeds will not prosper, and \u201cevery sanction recorded in this book will come down upon them\u201d (Deut. 30:19). For the Lord will strike them with foul diseases until He has \u201ccut them off\u201d by destroying them. As the Sages point out, dropsy is a sign of transgression.
\nIt is more correct, however, in my opinion, to assume that the word \u1e25esed carries its normal meaning, and that the verse should not be read to say \u201cit is a disgrace,\u201d but in the following way: \u201cA man who marries his sister \u2026 should be a loving man.\u201d Since he was not, \u201cthey shall be excommunicated\u201d and so forth. For he should have been \u201ca kindly man who benefits himself\u201d but instead became \u201ca cruel man who makes trouble for himself\u201d (Prov. 11:17). He ought to have treated her with brotherly kindness by marrying her off to another man; instead, he sullied and ruined her. As in v. 21, the verse makes the male the responsible party. With regard to Prov. 25:10, where NJPS translates the verb from this root as \u201creproach,\u201d bear in mind that the particular verb conjugation used there can refer to getting rid of a thing: to \u201cde-stone,\u201d to \u201cuproot,\u201d and so forth (see Exod. 27:3 and Job 31:12 for examples). In the Proverbs verse, therefore, it would mean \u201cto withdraw one\u2019s kindness\u201d or the like. I find it implausible that the word \u1e25esed could have two totally opposite meanings, as the standard translation here presumes. The Hebrew word \u1e25esed is always used with a positive connotation. It is only in Aramaic that the root can have a negative meaning, though even there the positive and negative meanings are expressed in two quite different words.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He sees her nakedness. As we learn from Gen. 27:27, when Isaac says, \u201cSee, the smell of my son is like the smell of the fields that the LORD has blessed,\u201d the Hebrew verb \u201csee\u201d can be used to mean \u201csense\u201d; here it refers to the sense of touch (Gersonides). It is a disgrace. Just as the standard word \u1e25esed refers to an extra measure of love and devotion, so this word refers to an extra measure of disgrace and depravity (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:18\u201319<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Laid bare. This verb he\u2019erah is related to ervah, \u201cnakedness.\u201d It is normal to add a v to certain roots to create a noun form; see, for example, the verb za, \u201cto stir from one\u2019s place,\u201d and the noun za\u2019avah, \u201ca horror\u201d (something that leaves one shaken); a\u1e25, \u201cbrother,\u201d and a\u1e25vah, \u201cbrotherhood.\u201d With regard specifically to this \u201claying bare,\u201d our Sages differed on what exactly it means. Some say it refers to contact with the penis, others to the beginning of insertion.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In her infirmity. It is the blood flow that makes her infirm. He has laid bare her flow. Again the repetition emphasizes the enormity of his deed. She has exposed her blood flow. In a case where she did so voluntarily. If she was raped, he alone is \u201ccut off.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The nakedness of your mother\u2019s sister or of your father\u2019s sister. By comparison with 18:13, we learn that one\u2019s parents\u2019 sisters are forbidden whether they are paternal or maternal sisters, but with regard to one\u2019s father\u2019s brother, his wife is forbidden only if he is the father\u2019s paternal brother.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
That is laying bare one\u2019s own flesh. The prohibition has already been announced in 18:12\u201313; now the reason is given. They shall bear their guilt. If they did it voluntarily. Notice that no specific punishment is announced here (as we would have expected in this chapter), and that the case of two sisters (18:18) is not mentioned at all. One who is enlightened will understand. And the punishments derived by tradition are true. Some say that a woman is forbidden to marry her father\u2019s brother just as a man is forbidden to marry his father\u2019s sister. But this is not the way it is done. A man can force a woman to have sex with him, but a woman cannot force a man. That is why the rules about these relationships are directed at men. But if we were to follow these people\u2019s faulty reasoning, why should we not accept the testimony of two women as we do of two men? Admittedly, the monetary equivalents for males are anywhere from 50% to 100% greater than those of females, so let\u2019s say the equivalent of two men\u2019s testimony would be that of four women. But no\u2014this is exactly the reason why we are dependent on tradition to understand how to apply the biblical rules.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They shall bear their guilt. Ibn Ezra\u2019s hint that \u201cone who is enlightened will understand\u201d (about Amram and Jacob) is pointless; as I have already explained, these relationships were forbidden by the Torah, but when Amram and Jacob lived, before the Torah was given, they were not forbidden (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:20\u201324<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If a man lies with his uncle\u2019s wife. These next two verses come to teach that the \u201ccutting off\u201d prescribed in 18:29 (at the end of the chapter prohibiting certain relationships) refers to \u201cchildlessness.\u201d Childless. If he has children already, he will bury them; if not, he will die without them.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
They shall die childless. Heaven will not let him live long enough to father children.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
His uncle\u2019s wife. The text merely says \u201chis aunt,\u201d but the continuation makes clear that it refers to his uncle\u2019s wife. They shall die childless. The Karaites translate this phrase, \u201cthey shall be put to death naked.\u201d Wrong! The word is not from \u05e2\u05e8\u05dd\u2014the \u05dd at the end of the word is simply the standard plural indicator. The truth is as the English translations (following the Aramaic) have it. Abram uses the word \u201cchildless\u201d in Gen. 15:2 with the same meaning. And see my comment to Jer. 22:30.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is indecency. The Hebrew word implies that it is not merely \u201cindecent\u201d but disgusting. Since the same word refers to menstrual \u201cimpurity\u201d (OJPS), our Sages read the word to liken this relationship to the \u201claying bare her flow\u201d of v. 18. This relationship is as forbidden as that one. They shall remain childless. If they already have children at the time they transgress, they shall live to bury their children and then \u201cthey shall die childless\u201d (v. 20); if they do not have children, \u201cthey shall remain childless\u201d as they are now throughout their lives.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is indecency. Literally, \u201cit is [like] menstruation.\u201d He should keep far from her. A verb with the same root is used in Isa. 66:5, \u201cYour kinsmen who hate you, who spurn you because of Me.\u201d Note that this word is not used anywhere else in the chapter. One is forbidden to sleep with a woman when she is a menstruant, but there comes a time when it is all right to sleep with her. With a brother\u2019s wife too, there may come a time when she is permitted, as I shall explain in my comment to Deut. 25:5.
\nNote that the text does not mention the punishment for sleeping with one\u2019s granddaughter; here it relies on the Oral Torah. Or it could be assuming that the grandfather would not have this desire, being well along in years by the time he has a granddaughter who is old enough. Similarly, there is no mention of one\u2019s elderly grandmothers.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:22<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
All My laws. The laws about sexual immorality. All My regulations. The regulations about how such immorality is to be punished. Lest the land to which I bring you to settle in spew you out. I will explain this in my comment to Deut. 31:16.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall faithfully observe all My laws and all My regulations. V. 8 refers to idolatry outside of the land of Israel, this verse to idolatry within the land (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I abhorred them. A better translation would be \u201cI was disgusted with them.\u201d The same verb is used when Rebekah says to Isaac, \u201cI am disgusted with my life because of the Hittite women\u201d (Gen. 27:46).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I abhorred them. This is metaphoric; God\u2019s feelings do not change. See a similar metaphor in Judg. 10:16.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:24<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A land flowing with milk and honey. There is no other like it. Who has set you apart from other peoples. By these rules about sexual immorality, as well as those described in v. 25.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall possess their land, for I will give it to you to possess. For it is in the portion of Shem, whose descendants you are; they are the descendants of Ham. All they are doing there is keeping an eye on it until you arrive (Hizkuni). I the LORD am your God. And you need no other (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:25\u201327<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are we told \u201cyou shall set apart the clean beast from the unclean, the unclean bird from the clean\u201d (v. 25) here, where it is quite out of place? Have we not already been told this in ch. 11?
\n\u2666 Why is v. 26 included, which is itself a repetition of what we have already been told at the end of v. 24?
\n\u2666 Finally, why the repetition yet again of \u201cA man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death\u201d (v. 27)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
So you shall set apart the clean beast from the unclean. Not between (say) a cow and a donkey, for the kinds of animals that are clean or unclean are easy enough to distinguish, but between particular animals that are either clean or unclean\u2014whether or not the gullet or the windpipe is cut through only halfway or more than halfway. For the difference between halfway and more than halfway is no more than a hairsbreadth. Which I have set apart for you to treat as unclean. Simply meaning that they are forbidden.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The clean beast. The 10 clean beasts mentioned in Deut. 14:4\u20135; all others are unclean. The unclean bird. Those mentioned in 11:13\u201319 and Deut. 14:12\u201318; all others are clean. To treat as unclean. Ordinarily the verb means \u201cto make something unclean.\u201d But the translations correctly note that here it means to speak of them and think of them as unclean. See similarly \u201cThe following you shall abominate among the birds\u201d (11:13, which uses a different verb but with a similar sense and similar grammatical form). The upshot is that the resident alien too may not eat anything unclean in the pure land. Only on that condition may he reside among us.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall set apart the clean beast from the unclean, the unclean bird from the clean. There are fewer clean beasts than unclean, but fewer unclean birds than clean\u2014and the smaller number is easier to distinguish; that is why the verse is expressed as it is. One should always formulate one\u2019s teachings in the most concise way (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I have set you apart from other peoples to be Mine. If you stay separate from them, you are Mine. If not, then you belong to Nebuchadnezzar and his friends. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: How do we know that one should not say, \u201cI find pig meat disgusting,\u201d \u201cI couldn\u2019t possibly wear linsey-woolsey,\u201d but should say, \u201cI could! But what can I do? My Father in heaven has forbidden them to me\u201d? From \u201cI have set you apart from other peoples to be Mine.\u201d What it literally says is not \u201cMine\u201d but \u201cfor Me.\u201d You are to be separated from the other nations for My sake, keeping yourselves apart from transgression and accepting upon yourselves the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall be holy to Me. If you observe all that I have commanded you. You are required to follow My lead, for I the LORD am holy.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy, and I have set you apart from other peoples to be Mine. Keep yourselves apart from unclean things and from the other peoples, and close to Me\u2014not the other way around (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 20:27<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death. In v. 6 we are told that they are to be \u201ccut off.\u201d Here is the difference: if they are warned not to commit the transgression and witnesses see them do it, they are to be pelted with stones. If they commit it deliberately, but without being warned, they are cut off. If their transgression was not deliberate, they simply bring a sin offering. And this is the rule whenever we find the same transgression punishable by death or by cutting off.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death. Remember that 19:31 forbids us \u201cto be defiled\u201d by involvement with ghosts or familiar spirits. Our verse is saying: be holy, and put to death anyone who defiles himself in this way. Note that up to this point the punishment for one who does so publicly has not been mentioned. \u201cA woman\u201d is mentioned specifically because this kind of thing is primarily in the hands of women: \u201cYou shall not tolerate a sorceress\u201d (Exod. 22:17).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death. This verse is obviously out of place; I can only interpret it as meaning that anyone who claims he has one of these \u201cspirits\u201d is as guilty of idolatry as one who gives of his offspring to Molech (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:1\u20132<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since the priest is equally defiled no matter which dead person he receives defilement from, why does the text specify (vv. 1\u20134) that he should defile himself for some but not for others?
\n\u2666 Why may he defile himself for these six relatives only, but not (e.g.) for his grandfather and grandmother?
\n\u2666 If it is indeed permissible to defile oneself for a brother (v. 2), why did Moses make Mishael and Elzaphan bury Nadab and Abihu rather than letting their brothers do it?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Speak to the priests. But not to the \u201csons of Aaron\u201d who do not have priestly status. The sons of Aaron. Not the daughters, but the sons. Nonetheless, any son of Aaron who is a priest is included, even if disqualified from serving by a physical defect. Say to them. \u201cSpeak\u201d to the adults and make sure that they \u201csay\u201d to their children. None shall defile himself for any dead person among his kin. But for a dead person who is not \u201camong his kin\u201d\u2014if there are no other Jews who can see to the burial\u2014he may do so.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
None shall defile himself for any dead person among his kin. The sense is more precisely, \u201cNone among his kin, his fellow priests, shall defile himself for any dead person.\u201d (The same sense applies to \u201ca virgin of his own kin\u201d in v. 14.) The verse says \u201camong\u201d his kin, not \u201cfor\u201d his kin. Contrast \u201cEven if his father or mother, or his brother or sister should die, he must not defile himself for them\u201d (Num. 6:7)\u2014not \u201camong\u201d them as in our verse.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Speak to the priests \u2026 and say to them. Literally, \u201cSay to the priests \u2026 and say to them.\u201d After having warned both the priests and the ordinary Israelites that they must be holy, Moses goes on to warn the priests specifically that there are still other things they must keep away from, because they are in the service of the Lord. Or it may be that the first \u201csay\u201d refers to Moses telling the preceding chapters to the priests (who were supposed to preserve God\u2019s teaching for the people) and the second \u201csay\u201d means that he was to explain to them the reasons for the commandments that they alone were to follow. None shall defile himself. The verb is a Hitpael; the \u05ea assimilates to \u05d8 of the root, causing it to be doubled with a dagesh. For any dead person. The Hebrew merely says \u201cfor any person,\u201d but the translations interpret this correctly as referring to a dead person. Among his kin. Rather, \u201camong his people,\u201d all of Israel.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them. The English conceals a difficulty in the Hebrew. It is more literally translated, \u201cSay to the priests \u2026 and say to them.\u201d Rashi\u2019s explanation, taken from rabbinic literature, is to be understood as follows: We must certainly not do anything that would cause children to become ritually impure. But we learn from many commandments in the Torah (as interpreted by our Sages) that, though we should not assist children to come in contact with anything forbidden by the Torah, if they do so of their own accord we need not stop them. In our verse, the repetition of \u201csay\u201d (following this interpretation) would be to tell the priests that not only must they avoid impurity, but they must tell their children to avoid it also. Ibn Ezra\u2019s explanation, that the priests were to \u201csay\u201d the preceding rules to the Israelites and the following ones to themselves alone, is simply incorrect. In my opinion, the English translations are correct in making the first \u201csay\u201d into \u201cspeak.\u201d The Hebrew roots can be used interchangeably: \u201cMoses spoke to Aaron and to his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, \u2018Take the meal offering that is left over\u2019 \u201d (10:12); \u201cGo to Pharaoh and speak to him, \u2018Thus says the LORD\u2019 \u201d (Exod. 9:1). Moreover, there are many examples of repetition like that of our verse: \u201cSpeak to the Israelites and say to them.\u201d The redundancy of \u201cspeak and say\u201d is for emphasis, either because the commandment is particularly important or because the people were in the habit of violating it. The same applies here, with \u201csay and say\u201d (see also Jer. 34:2). The emphasis derives from the essential meaning of the expression: speak to them in My name and say to them. Many people would say that (both in the regular expression and here) the first verb is a summons: \u201cCall them and say to them.\u201d The priests, the sons of Aaron. Note that the instructions about the sacrifices are given \u201cto Aaron and his sons\u201d (e.g., 6:18), not to \u201cthe priests.\u201d The rules given here, however, apply permanently, even when they are not coming to serve in the Temple; they apply to the priests themselves. Since they are \u201cPriests of the LORD and \u2026 servants of our God\u201d (Isa. 61:6), they must act respectably and as distinguished persons would do, and never allow themselves to become unclean. Notice that this rule does not apply to those who have disqualified themselves from priestly status through an improper marriage, nor to the children of such a marriage. None shall defile himself. The switch to the singular here may imply what the translations say, or they may mean that the \u201ckinsman\u201d of v. 4 (but see my comment there) should not defile himself.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Speak to the priests. In 20:24, God explains that the Israelites are \u201cset apart\u201d from the other peoples; now the priests are set apart from the ordinary Israelites (Bekhor Shor). This section was said on the day the Tabernacle was set up, at which time the priests were obliged to begin their service. It is juxtaposed to 20:27, \u201cA man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death,\u201d because Jews have no need of spirits\u2014if you must ask, \u201cspeak to the priests\u201d and they will inquire of the Urim and Thummim for you (Hizkuni). \u201cSpeak to the priests\u201d to summon them, \u201cand say\u201d to the ordinary priests the rules that apply to them; the specific rules for the High Priest come later. But I prefer to explain it as repetition. People are very upset when their relatives die, so the priests must be told over and over again not to mourn for them (Abarbanel). None shall defile himself for any dead person among his kin. This tells us that corpse uncleanness is not operative among gentiles, and that the priests are to loathe materiality except when it provides some benefit to the human essence (Gersonides). Rather, \u201cnone shall defile himself among his kin with regard to his soul\u201d; compare Deut 4:15. The continued contact of the spiritual soul with the dead material body is a source of uncleanness (Abarbanel). He shall not defile himself for anyone among \u201chis people,\u201d the mass of Jews, except for close relatives (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Except for the relatives that are closest to him. Rather, \u201cexcept for the flesh that is closest to him\u201d\u2014his wife.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Except for the relatives that are closest to him. More precisely, \u201cexcept for his flesh that is close to him.\u201d It would seem to us that (as in 18:6) this is a general term for one\u2019s relations, which are then specified: mother, father, and so forth. (His mother is mentioned first because ordinarily males live longer than females.) But our Sages transmitted the tradition that a priest defiles himself for his wife as well, and they explain \u201chis flesh\u201d as \u201chis wife,\u201d as a mnemonic for this tradition. On this sort of mnemonic, see my comment to Exod. 21:8 on the word \u201coutsiders.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The relatives that are closest to him. Literally, the \u201cflesh\u201d that is closest to him. According to Gen 2:24, \u201ca man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh\u201d (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:3\u20135<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Is his married sister (v. 4) not just as much his sister as his unmarried sister? The rules about incest certainly do not make this distinction!
\n\u2666 Why must we be told that the priests \u201cshall not shave smooth any part of their heads\u201d (v. 5), when 19:27 has just prohibited this for all the Israelites?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Close to him. She is still considered \u201cclose to him\u201d even if she is engaged, as long as she is not yet married. Because she has not married. More literally, \u201cbecause she has not been with a man\u201d for sex. For her he may defile himself. Rather, \u201che must defile himself\u201d for her. He is commanded to do so.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Close to him. Being his full sister, daughter of both his father and his mother.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A virgin sister, close to him because she has not married. But if she is married, her husband defiles himself to bury her even if he is a priest\u2014further evidence that the \u201cflesh\u201d of v. 2 does indeed mean one\u2019s wife (Bekhor Shor). A half-sister is \u201cclose to him\u201d if she is his father\u2019s daughter, but not if she is his mother\u2019s daughter, since she would not inherit from him in that case (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But he shall not defile himself as a kinsman by marriage, and so profane himself. He shall not defile himself for a wife by whom, when she was still living, he was disqualified from the priesthood. This is the rabbinic ruling, and it is in fact the straightforward sense of the Hebrew: a husband shall not defile himself for his \u201cflesh\u201d (that is, his wife) while he is still \u201camong his people\u201d (OJPS), for there are others who can bury her in that case. And what kind of wife are we talking about? One through whom he has managed \u201cto profane himself\u201d (OJPS) from his priestly status.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
But he shall not defile himself as a kinsman by marriage. The straightforward sense is more properly, \u201cNo husband among his kin the priests shall defile himself\u201d for his wife and so profane himself. Defiling himself in this way would profane his priestly status. According to the Sages, however, the verse means that he may not defile himself for a wife who is forbidden to him as a priest, but he does defile himself for a proper wife.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
But he shall not defile himself as a kinsman by marriage. Some say that the Hebrew word baal refers to a superior (\u201cits owner not being with it,\u201d Exod. 22:13), and not to a husband at all. Given the rabbinic tradition that a priest does defile himself for his wife, OJPS has the correct translation here\u2014\u201cHe shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people\u201d\u2014and the way one would understand v. 2 at first glance is refuted. The correct meaning of our verse is that any chief man among the Israelites, priest or not, shall not defile himself except for the relatives mentioned in vv. 2 and 3. Profane himself. Grammatically, the verb is the Niphal infinitive construct of \u05d7\u05dc\u05dc, the dagesh resulting from the assimilation of the second \u05dc.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
As a kinsman by marriage. The correct translation is that of OJPS, \u201cbeing a chief man among his people.\u201d The word baal means \u201clord,\u201d referring (like the English word) both to one who is greatly respected and to one who is a master (as when Exod. 22:13 refers to an animal\u2019s \u201cmaster,\u201d or in the expression \u201cmaster of the house\u201d). Such a \u201cchief man\u201d must not defile himself and thereby treat himself disrespectfully. The text explains that since a priest is fit to have the highest rank among his people, he must therefore not defile himself by contact with the dead. We should not think this applies only when they enter the Tent of Meeting for sacred service. Vv. 9 and 15 make clear that this entire passage has to do with the status of the priests. But the Sifra interprets this phrase to mean \u201ca husband,\u201d as Rashi and NJPS have it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
But he shall not defile himself as a kinsman by marriage. Rather, \u201cHe shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people\u201d (OJPS). But I have seen this explained to mean that he should not defile himself even for a chief man among his people\u2014the High Priest (Bekhor Shor). Being a chief man, he must not give honor to the dead except for his relatives, for their honor is his honor (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads. In mourning for the dead.\u2014But are not all the Israelites forbidden to do this?\u2014Yes, but they are told, \u201cYou are children of the LORD your God. You shall not gash yourselves or shave the front of your heads because of the dead\u201d (Deut. 14:1). From our verse, we learn that such shaving is forbidden (even for ordinary Israelites) not just on \u201cthe front\u201d of the head, but on \u201cany part,\u201d while we learn from that verse what such shaving is about: it is \u201cbecause of the dead.\u201d Or cut the side-growth of their beards. All the Israelites are instructed, \u201cYou shall not \u2026 destroy the side-growth of your beard\u201d (19:27). One might think that any such \u201cdestruction\u201d is prohibited, even by plucking out the beard with tweezers. But our verse restricts the prohibition to one who \u201cshaves\u201d (see OJPS), that is, with a razor. Or make gashes in their flesh. More precisely, \u201cor gash a gash.\u201d When the Israelites are instructed, \u201cYou shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead\u201d (19:28), we might not have realized what the unnecessary repetition of the word in our verse now tells us: Each and every gash constitutes a separate offense. Since I would have understood \u201cYou shall not gash your flesh\u201d perfectly well, it is clear that the noun \u201cgash\u201d was added to express some additional meaning.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads. As a sign of mourning. But the same applies to all Jews.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads. For the dead. Or cut the side-growth of their beards. Again, for the dead, as is the custom in certain places in Babylonia. This clarifies why you are not to \u201cdestroy the side-growth of your beard\u201d (19:27). Or make gashes in their flesh. More precisely, \u201cor make a gash in their flesh\u201d\u2014not even a single one. All of the Israelites have previously been forbidden to do these things; their prohibition here is to specify that a priest with a \u201csmoothed\u201d head, or a shaved beard, or a gash in his flesh, may not serve before the Lord.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads. According to the straightforward interpretation, the rules given here for the priests are somewhat more restrictive than those given to the Israelites as a whole in 19:27\u201328. But a linguistic link between the two sets of verses, handed down to us as a legitimate interpretation from Moses at Sinai, makes clear that the straightforward interpretation is to be rejected. The rules are the same. They are given here specifically for the priests in order to say that a priest who shaves or gashes himself may not serve until his hair grows out or the gashes heal (Bekhor Shor). The priests might think that they are sufficiently distant from idolatry not to have to worry about these practices\u2014but they do (Abarbanel). Though I permit them to defile themselves for the dead when they are close relatives, even in this case they may not disfigure themselves (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:6\u20139<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 How are we to explain the apparent contradiction between v. 6, whose Hebrew text (and see OJPS) apparently says that their making the Lord\u2019s offerings makes them holy, and v. 8, which apparently says that it is the Israelites who make them holy for that purpose?
\n\u2666 What does the rule about the daughter of a priest who \u201cdefiles herself through harlotry\u201d (v. 9) have to do with the context of this chapter?
\n\u2666 Why is there no equivalent rule for a priest\u2019s son who disgraces himself?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They shall be holy. They will be holy whether they want to be or not. The court will enforce these rules, for they must be holy.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For they offer the LORD\u2019S offerings by fire. This explains why they must \u201cnot profane the name of their God.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
They shall be holy to their God. \u201cHoliness\u201d means self-restraint, as I have explained in my comment to 19:2. The priests must restrain themselves even from things that are permissible for an ordinary Israelite, such as contamination by contact with the dead or marriage with women who are not fit for them by being both physically and ritually clean.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God. It may seem to be their own honor they are dispensing with\u2014but as priests, their honor is God\u2019s honor, and when they dispense with it they profane His name (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Defiled by harlotry. Rather, \u201ca harlot, or profaned.\u201d A \u201charlot\u201d is one who has had sex with an Israelite man, but one who is forbidden to her\u2014a close relative, the product of an illegitimate marriage, or a descendant of the Gibeonites. A woman who is \u201cprofaned\u201d is one born of a marriage forbidden to a priest (e.g., a High Priest married to a widow, or an ordinary priest married to a divorc\u00e9e), or who has herself had a relationship that prohibits her from marrying a priest.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
They shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry. Rather, \u201ca woman that is a harlot, or profaned\u201d (OJPS)\u2014profaned because she is the daughter of a priest and one of the women mentioned in v. 14. By marrying one of them, he would \u201cprofane his offspring\u201d (v. 15).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A woman defiled by harlotry. \u201cHarlotry\u201d has its straightforward meaning here, as it does everywhere else in the Bible (see, e.g., my comment to Joel 4:3). But in fact our verse says not \u201ca woman defiled by harlotry,\u201d but \u201ca woman that is a harlot, or profaned\u201d (OJPS). The difference in the second case would be that she is \u201cprofaned\u201d in some way but not publicly known to be a harlot. Now, it would appear from Ezek. 44:22, \u201cThey shall not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of the stock of the House of Israel, or widows who are widows of priests,\u201d that a priest can only marry the widow of another priest. Another man\u2019s widow would somehow be \u201cprofaned.\u201d But v. 14 (again, see OJPS) makes clear that this is not so; \u201cwidow\u201d and \u201cprofaned\u201d are separate categories. The traditional interpretation of the Ezekiel verse\u2014that an ordinary priest may marry a widow of any kind\u2014is therefore correct.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
For they are holy to their God. Rather, \u201cfor he is holy\u201d (OJPS)\u2014which might be understood to apply to the divorc\u00e9e\u2019s ex-husband. He divorced her not because of some defect in his own character, but because of a flaw in her, so the priest ought not to marry her. The upshot is that a priest can marry a widow, to whom this does not apply (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You must treat them as holy. Whether they wish to be so treated or not. If one of them refuses to divorce a forbidden wife, you must whip him for marrying her and then harass him until he divorces her. They shall be holy to you. They are to be given primacy in everything, and should be the first asked to lead the recitation of Grace after Meals.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You must treat them as holy. Both in your speech and in your thoughts. I the LORD who sanctify you am holy. I sanctify all of you.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
For I the LORD who sanctify you am holy. \u201cYou\u201d here are the priests; see v. 1. Or perhaps it does refer to both the priests and the people. In that case, the sense of the verse would be, \u201cThrough him, the priest, I sanctify all of you and cause my Shekhinah to rest upon your sanctuary.\u201d But it could be that, in accordance with the True interpretation, this relates to the beginning of the verse. I have explained this in my comment to 1:9.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When the daughter of a priest defiles herself through harlotry. Though already bound to a husband, whether by marriage or simply by engagement. Our Sages disputed the details of the matter, but everyone agrees that \u201charlotry\u201d does not apply to a woman who is not spoken for. It is her father whom she defiles. She \u201cdefiles\u201d his honor, that is, shames him. For people will say, \u201cCursed be he who fathered her, cursed be he who raised her.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The daughter of a priest. One who is betrothed, as explained on B. Sanh. 50a.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When the daughter of a priest defiles herself through harlotry. Many commentators understand the Hebrew to mean \u201cwhen she begins to play the harlot.\u201d The English translations, however, follow my opinion, that the verb refers to defilement. In either case, the verb is a Hiphil of \u05d7\u05dc\u05dc; see similarly \u201che shall not break his pledge\u201d (Num. 30:3). The problem is that the vowel under the \u05ea is more suggestive of a Niphal than a Hiphil. But it may be that the vowel differs specifically to prevent this verb being confused with \u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc, \u201cbegin.\u201d In any case, a priest\u2019s daughter who has defiled herself through harlotry has therefore defiled her father\u2019s honor as well, and she shall be put to the fire. It makes no difference whether she is married or merely betrothed.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It is her father whom she defiles. \u201cShe\u201d is ordinarily written in the Torah exactly like the masculine pronoun \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0; this is one of only 11 cases in the Torah where it is spelled \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0, as it normally is in the Bible and elsewhere in Hebrew (Masorah). She shall be put to the fire. She was hot to trot\u2014so we turn up the heat even higher (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:10\u201312<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Shall not bare his head. Rather, he \u201cshall not let the hair of his head go loose\u201d (OJPS), letting it grow as a mourning ritual. The time limit beyond which he is deemed to be letting his hair grow out is 30 days.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The vestments. \u201cThe\u201d sacred vestments. Shall not bare his head. Rather, \u201cshall not let the hair of his head go loose\u201d (OJPS). Rend his vestments. From both statements we learn what our Sages have transmitted, that these two actions are the rule for ordinary mourners.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Shall not bare his head. Rather, \u201cshall not let the hair of his head go loose\u201d (OJPS); see my comment to 10:6.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Rend his vestments. \u201cTearing\u201d means creating a tear in the cloth; \u201crending\u201d means tearing the garment along a seam (Kimhi). The priest may not make himself look repellent even when he is in mourning (Hizkuni). Exod 28:38 tells us that the frontlet with the inscription \u201cHoly to the LORD\u201d must be on the High Priest\u2019s forehead \u201cat all times,\u201d so it is clear that he is always in the Temple and may not appear in this fashion (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Where there is any dead body. The technical term for this is \u201cthe tent of the dead\u201d\u2014he may not be under the same roof as a corpse. The Hebrew text uses the word nefesh, and we know from 17:14 that the nefesh equals the blood. So even as little as a fourth of a log of blood from a corpse makes him unclean if he is under the same roof. He shall not defile himself even for his father or mother. This unnecessary phrase (see OJPS; the Hebrew does not say \u201ceven\u201d) is understood to imply that he does not defile himself for his parents, but he does defile himself, if necessary, when there is no one else to take care of the body.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall not go in. He shall not enter a tent or a building. Where there is any dead body. \u201cBody\u201d is not found in the original Hebrew, which states, \u201cHe shall not go in where there are any persons of a dead \u2026\u201d (\u201cdead\u201d being an adjective, implying the noun \u201cbody\u201d). The phenomenon is found elsewhere: \u201cThe rich man answers with harsh [words]\u201d (Prov. 18:23); \u201chis nourishment is a fat [sheep]\u201d (Hab. 1:16). Even for his father or mother. He shall not defile himself even for them, whom he is commanded to honor both in life and in death\u2014let alone for his brother or his son.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Where there is any dead body. This is really a continuation of v. 10: he shall not let his hair grow out or rend his vestments for the dead, nor go in where there is a dead body.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall not go outside the sanctuary. He does not attend the funeral. Our Sages further learned from this phrase that a High Priest who has lost a family member may nevertheless go on with the temple service, even before the burial. This is indeed the sense of the verse in context: even if his father or mother has died, he need not leave the sanctuary, but is permitted to continue the divine service. And profane the sanctuary. Rather, \u201cAnd he does not profane the sanctuary\u201d (see OJPS) by doing so. But an ordinary priest whose father or mother has died does profane the sanctuary if he continues to serve during this stage of mourning.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall not go outside the sanctuary. The transmitters of tradition say this means he shall not leave the sanctuary to follow a funeral procession (and this is correct). Some say it refers only to the seven days of the priestly inauguration ceremony, but that is impossible\u2014our text refers to a priest \u201con whose head the anointing oil has [already] been poured and who has [already] been ordained to wear the vestments\u201d (v. 10). But it may mean that he should not leave the sanctuary for any purpose other than to fulfill a commandment.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his God. The two rabbinic explanations given here by Rashi contradict each other. If the text permits the High Priest not to go outside the sanctuary (as would an ordinary priest) but to serve while he is in the first stage of mourning, then there is no commandment here that prevents him from attending the funeral. If Rashi\u2019s explanation is correct, then the correct translation would be: \u201cHe need not go outside the sanctuary, nor does he profane the sanctuary of his God\u201d while serving despite his being in mourning. But an ordinary priest who serves while mourning does \u201cprofane the sanctuary of his God.\u201d If this is correct, then our verse is simply an exception to the rule. But the Sifra says it is an absolute prohibition, and I have already explained it as such in my comment to 10:6, along the lines of \u201cYou shall not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days, until the day that your period of ordination is completed\u201d (8:33). I think it is possible to reconcile all of the scholarly views by understanding it as follows: The High Priest, while he is serving, must not leave the sanctuary on account of any dead person, for that would profane the sanctuary by granting greater respect to the corpse. His respect for the sanctuary must be greater than his love for the dead person. All the more so does he violate a prohibition if he downs tools and leaves the sanctuary for no reason whatsoever. Since our verse explicitly permits him to serve while he is in the first stage of mourning, he must do so. Again, I have explained all this in my comment to 10:6. (You will find further rabbinic discussion about this on B. Zev. 16a.) The discussion on B. Sanh. 18a implying that the focus is on the sanctity of the High Priest, not that of the sanctuary itself, is attached to this verse as a kind of memory aid, following the standard practice of the Talmud. See further T. Sanh. 4:1 and Y. Sanh. 2:1; space does not permit me to discuss them here.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Mine the LORD\u2019S. \u201cI am the LORD\u201d (OJPS), and he ought to pay no mind to the dead when in My Presence\u2014for I live forever, and eternal salvation is found through Me, not through those who have already died (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:13\u201317<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:13<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Who is a virgin. Rather, who is \u201cin her virginity\u201d (OJPS). Like a number of other Hebrew words naming abstract terms, this word only and always appears in the plural. (There are likewise a number of Hebrew words that only appear in the singular, and never in the plural.)<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He may marry only a woman who is a virgin. \u201cOnly\u201d is not in the Hebrew (see OJPS), but that is the sense. This is essentially the prohibition of v. 14, stated in positive terms.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He may marry only a woman who is a virgin. And only \u201ca\u201d woman, not two or more; his intense holiness precludes him from overindulgence in sex (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
One who is degraded. By having been born of a marriage forbidden to a priest.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A widow, or a divorced woman. Whether she is widowed or divorced from an ordinary Israelite or a priest. One who is degraded by harlotry. Rather, \u201ca profaned woman, or a harlot\u201d (OJPS). Compare \u201cSun and moon stand still on high\u201d (Hab. 3:11), where (as in our verse) the conjunction is simply missing in the Hebrew. Only a virgin of his own kin. The repetition of the requirement that she be a virgin is made to emphasize that she must also be \u201cof his own people\u201d (as OJPS more correctly translates). A virgin who was captured in war, or who converted to Judaism, is forbidden to him.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife. This is the explicit commandment that he must, indeed, marry. As the Sages have framed it, \u201cHe mustn\u2019t marry a widow; he must marry a virgin.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
That he may not profane his offspring. If he were to marry one of the women forbidden to him, his offspring from her are \u201cprofane\u201d\u2014they do not have the status of \u201cpriest\u201d and are not bound by the rules that preserve priestly sanctity.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
That he may not profane his offspring. Rather, \u201cAnd he shall not profane his seed\u201d (OJPS)\u2014by having a secret relationship with a widow or a divorced woman or any of the other women whom v. 14 forbids him to marry publicly.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
That he may not profane his offspring among his kin. NJPS follows Rashi\u2019s explanation of the Hebrew as a description of the negative consequences of his marrying a woman forbidden to him. But OJPS follows the rabbinic explanation\u2014this is a second prohibition: \u201cHe shall not profane his seed among his people.\u201d As the Sages said, if he consummates the marriage, he is whipped twice: once for violating \u201csuch he may not marry\u201d (v. 14) and once for violating \u201che shall not profane.\u201d (He is also whipped for violating \u201che shall not profane\u201d if he has intercourse with her even though he did not marry her.) They are therefore two separate prohibitions. They also explain that if he marries her without consummating the relationship, he is not whipped at all. For why is he forbidden to marry her? To avoid profaning his offspring. The text, then, says that he must marry a virgin in order to avoid profaning his offspring; we ourselves make the logical connection that his children by the women prohibited in v. 14 are \u201cprofaned.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The food of his God. Literally \u201cthe bread of his God\u201d (OJPS), but in fact the word can be used to refer to a meal of any kind: \u201cKing Belshazzar gave a great banquet for his thousand nobles\u201d (Dan. 5:1).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Speak to Aaron and say. Having finished discussing how the priests are to remain holy, the text turns to various disqualifying physical defects. The food of his God. This refers to the offerings for the altar, which involve the ordinary priests; Moses must therefore tell Aaron that it applies to any of his \u201coffspring.\u201d Each of the English translations has clarified the Hebrew\u2014literally, \u201ca man of your seed\u201d\u2014in its own way.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Speak to Aaron. It does not say \u201cSpeak to Aaron and his sons\u201d as it does elsewhere (e.g., in 6:18, giving the instructions for the sacrifices). Had it done so here, it would have had to say, \u201cNo man of you throughout the ages who has a defect \u2026,\u201d which would have included Aaron himself in the category of those who might have a defect. And this the Holy One did not wish to do. For Aaron was the holy one of the Lord, and every part of him was fair\u2014there was no blemish in him. The rule about defects applies only to his offspring. But Aaron is included in the rules given in ch. 22, for there is no reason to think that he too might not become temporarily unclean in some way. You will note that in 22:4, when the uncleanness involves the priest\u2019s own body, again the text limits its scope to \u201cAaron\u2019s offspring.\u201d Such a thing could not happen to Aaron himself, \u201cFor he is a messenger of the LORD of Hosts\u201d (Mal. 2:7). When v. 24 says, \u201cThus Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites,\u201d it is clear that Moses wished Aaron\u2019s sons to learn this teaching directly from him, and that he also wanted the Israelites to understand the matter, since the courts that would rule on such cases would come from among them. The Sifra interprets vv. 18, 21, and 22:4 to include \u201cAaron\u201d as well as his offspring, but they do not mean Aaron himself; they mean \u201cAaron\u201d as a symbol for the High Priests that would come after him. Or perhaps they do mean Aaron himself, because in formulating the law the Torah did not wish to rely on the miracle that would protect him from such defects. It would seem, however, that the Torah wished to keep Aaron\u2019s name out of this discussion, out of respect for him, and to hint that no such thing would happen to him, after all.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:18\u201321<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why must the priest with a \u201cdefect\u201d be disqualified no less than four times, in vv. 17, 18, and twice in v. 21?
\n\u2666 Why must the priest with a defect keep being referred to as Aaron\u2019s offspring? If he were someone else\u2019s offspring, would he be permitted to serve with a defect?!<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
No one at all who has a defect shall be qualified. Rather, \u201cFor one who has a defect should not approach\u201d (see OJPS). \u201cJust offer it to your governor: Will he accept you? Will he show you favor?\u2014said the LORD of Hosts\u201d (Mal. 1:8). Or has a limb too short. Specifically, a nose so sunken that he can paint both eyes without lifting the brush. Or too long. This applies to any body part that is bigger than its matching part: one big eye and one small one, or one leg longer than the other.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
A limb too short or too long. These terms are explained on B. Bek. 43b and 3b, respectively.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A limb too short. NJPS is correct; this Hebrew word is the opposite of the next, \u201ctoo long.\u201d It comes from a root meaning \u201ccut off,\u201d as in \u1e25erem, \u201cexcommunication,\u201d and the English word harem, where the sultan\u2019s wives are cut off from communication with the outside world. Too long. A verb from the same root occurs in Isa. 28:20, \u201cThe couch is too short for stretching out.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A limb too short. See Rashi\u2019s comment about the nose, which is taken from the Sifra\u2014and somewhat overstated. What they do agree on there is that this is a word relating to the nose. As Num. 21:2 suggests, the Hebrew word derives from a root meaning \u201cdestruction.\u201d One\u2019s nose is the glory of the face\u2014if the nose does not look normal, the whole appearance of the face is wrecked, so much so that a corpse may not be legally identified if the nose is destroyed.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
No one at all who has a defect shall be qualified. Rather, for no such person shall be qualified (see OJPS). It is an explanation: it does not look right for such a person to bring offerings to God (Hizkuni). Any deviation from the norm is considered a defect even if it does not impair one\u2019s natural abilities (Gersonides). The defects listed are merely categories, which explains why deafness, epilepsy, tremor, and other such defects are not listed (Abarbanel). For, as Esther 4:2 has it, \u201cone cannot enter the palace gate wearing sackcloth\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A hunchback. Rather, a gibben is one whose gebinim, \u201ceyebrows,\u201d are so long that they fall over his eyes. A dwarf. A dak is one who has a dok, a cataract. A related word is used in \u201cWho spread out the skies like gauze\u201d (Isa. 40:22). Who has a growth in his eye. A teballul is something that mebalbel, \u201cconfuses,\u201d the eye, e.g., a thread of white that continues from the white of the eye across the iris. Onkelos and the Sages both use a word to describe this defect that describes it as \u201cwormlike.\u201d A boil-scar, or scurvy. These are both kinds of inflammation. The first, gerev, is an \u201citch\u201d (\u1e25eres), an inflammation that is dry both on the surface of the skin and below; the second is a skin disease called \u201cEgyptian lichen.\u201d The Hebrew word for it is yallefet, because it continues to cling, melappefet, to the skin until the day of death. It is moist on the surface of the skin but dry underneath. But elsewhere it is our first Hebrew word, gerev, that is described in this way. As B. Bek. 41b explains, when gerev and \u1e25eres are mentioned together, yallefet is included in the term gerev; when gerev and yallefet are mentioned together, it is \u1e25eres that is included in the term gerev. Our verse is an example of the latter; for the former, see Deut. 28:27, \u201cThe LORD will strike you with the Egyptian inflammation, with hemorrhoids, boil-scars, and itch.\u201d Crushed testes. The English translations (correctly) follow Onkelos.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A hunchback. The Hebrew word is related to \u201cwhy so hostile, O jagged mountains?\u201d (Ps. 68:17), from the root \u05d2\u05d1\u05df. It is an adjective, as OJPS more precisely translates: \u201ccrook-backed.\u201d A dwarf. This too is an adjective in Hebrew, describing something there is not much of; a \u201cdwarfed\u201d person is one who is short of stature. A growth in his eye. Some relate the Hebrew word for \u201cgrowth\u201d to that translated in 20:12 as \u201cincest,\u201d both in the sense of \u201csomething destructive.\u201d Others related it to \u201cmixed\u201d (e.g., 2:5); in either case, the \u05ea with which the word begins is a prefix, not part of the root. A boil-scar. Many people understand this word also to refer specifically to a deformity of the eye. Scurvy. The Hebrew root from which this word is derived implies something that clings to the person. A verb from this root is used when Samson \u201cembraced the two middle pillars that the temple rested upon\u201d (Judg. 16:29). But others understand it to refer to crookedness, as when Boaz \u201cgave a start and twisted away\u201d (Ruth 3:8). In any case, as the verb shows, the root of the noun is \u05dc\u05e4\u05ea. The \u05d9 with which it begins is a prefixed letter. Crushed testes. The adjective is not \u201ccrushed\u201d but \u201cpuffed,\u201d being derived from the word for \u201cwind.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A hunchback, or a dwarf. This is a mistranslation; both of these words are actually defects that occur in his eye. The word gibben denotes the condition of having gabbot, \u201ceyebrows,\u201d so long that they fall across the eye; dak is a cataract. The defects are listed in the following order: first, those where the person has something missing; then, where part of his body is too big or too small; then, when something is broken (even though nothing is actually missing); then, even defects that are merely esthetic; then, blemishes on the flesh (for a priest\u2019s skin must be smooth and clean); finally, one whose testicles are puffed up, a disease that is common in the elderly, even though it is not a defect of bone or flesh. The Sages listed many other defects that are derived from these, for the ones mentioned in the Torah are meant to indicate categories, not specific defects.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
No man \u2026 who has a defect. A catch-all phrase to include any defect not yet mentioned. Having a defect. While he has the defect, he is disqualified from serving. But if the defect goes away, he is fit to serve. The food of his God. Literally, \u201cthe bread of his God.\u201d But again, any kind of food may be called \u201cbread.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
No man among the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect. The text follows the specification with a more general statement. Having a defect. Rather, \u201cHe has a defect!\u201d (compare OJPS). As in 20:9, the repetition serves for emphasis.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:22\u201322:2<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why must the priests be warned to be \u201cscrupulous\u201d (v. 2) about ritual uncleanness, when all of Israel has already been cautioned about it?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The most holy. These are the sacrifices that are most holy. As well as of the holy. The sacrifices that are of lesser holiness. But why mention them specifically, when we know already that he is permitted to eat offerings that are more holy than these? As B. Zev. 101b explains, we have an actual case of a non-priest eating the most holy offerings, for Moses gets a portion of the ram of ordination in 8:29. So certainly a priest (albeit with a blemish) could eat them. But we have no example of a non-priest eating the offerings of lesser holiness.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The food of his God. Here the reference is to the showbread and to the meat of guilt and sin offerings, which are of the most holy (by comparison with sacrifices of well-being). As well as of the holy. Tithes and first fruits, which are of lesser sanctity.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But he shall not enter behind the curtain. Rather, \u201cunto\u201d it (OJPS), to sprinkle the blood upon it seven times. Or come near the altar. This refers to the outer altar. One might think one who cannot approach the altar could certainly not approach the curtain, but in fact it was necessary to state both these restrictions. The Sifra explains why. He shall not profane these places sacred to Me. Rather, \u201cthese things sacred to Me.\u201d If someone with a physical defect does perform a ritual action, his action is profane and therefore invalid.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall not enter behind the curtain (if he is the High Priest) or come near the altar.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 21:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Thus Moses spoke this commandment to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites. The Israelites had to be told it as well, so that the courts would know how to deal with violations of it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Moses spoke \u2026 to all the Israelites. To tell them that they must not let priests who are blemished slaughter offerings of well-being for them\u2014at least, that is how we would explain it if not for the tradition that says this is permissible.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
To be scrupulous about the sacred donations. Rather, to \u201cseparate themselves from the holy things\u201d (OJPS). The Hebrew verb means \u201cto keep apart, to move away\u201d: \u201cIf any man of the House of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, breaks away from Me\u201d (Ezek. 14:7); \u201cThey have forsaken the LORD, spurned the Holy One of Israel, turned their backs on Him\u201d (Isa. 1:4). When they are unclean, the priests must keep away from the holy things. That the Israelite people consecrate to Me. The English translations have (correctly) moved this phrase here from where it appears in the Hebrew text. The purpose of the unusual positioning of the phrase is to indicate that the command includes even sacred donations made by the priests themselves.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
To be scrupulous. More precisely, to withhold themselves from eating sanctified foods while in a state of uncleanness.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations. Having pointed out that a blemished priest may nonetheless eat of the sacred donations, the text goes on to point out that the one who eats must still be ritually pure. The verb \u201cto be scrupulous\u201d comes from the same root as \u201cYou shall put the Israelites on guard against their uncleanness\u201d (15:31), but in a different conjugation. The root implies keeping separate and apart. The term \u201cnazirite\u201d for a person who abstains from grape products comes from the same root. That the Israelite people consecrate to Me, lest they profane My holy name, Mine the LORD\u2019S. The English translations have moved one of these phrases out of its place in the Hebrew. The correct translation is: \u201cLest they profane My holy name and what they consecrate to Me: I am the LORD.\u201d I am the Lord and am holy.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
To be scrupulous about the sacred donations that the Israelite people consecrate to Me, lest they profane My holy name. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But if we explain \u201cthey\u201d of \u201cwhich they hallow unto Me\u201d (see OJPS) as referring to the priests, there is no need to assume that the phrases in the verse are out of order. The verse is saying, \u201cThe priests are to be scrupulous about the sacred donations of the Israelites, lest they profane My holy name with them; and with what Aaron and his sons themselves consecrate to Me.\u201d This is in fact how it is understood in the Sifra, which says nothing about the verse being out of order. Mine the LORD\u2019S. According to the True interpretation, they must not profane \u201cthe Name that is sanctified to Me.\u201d For His name in the sanctuary is LORD, the Tetragrammaton. I have already alluded to this in my comment to \u201cdo not profane the name of your God\u201d (18:21).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations. Following closely after the rules of ch. 21, it is clear that this refers not only to eating the sacred donations but also to serving in the Temple (Gersonides). They must not think that their status is so high that the sacred donations of the Israelites become ordinary for them, the priests (Sforno). Lest they profane My holy name. For \u201cI am the LORD\u201d (OJPS), the First Cause, and no one may scorn My Presence (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:3\u20137<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
While in a state of uncleanness. The translations correctly understand that this phrase refers to the person, though the Hebrew might be read as if it were the sacred donation that was in a state of uncleanness. But eating such flesh has already been prohibited in 7:19, and \u201cwhile in a state of uncleanness\u201d can only refer to something whose uncleanness can vanish: a human being, who can become clean by ritual bathing. This forces you to interpret the text as saying that it is the person who is unclean. Partakes of any sacred donation. The text refers literally to one who \u201capproaches\u201d the sacred donations (see OJPS). But NJPS has correctly understood that the idiom here refers to one who eats them. Similarly, eating is referred to as \u201ctouching\u201d in 12:4, \u201cshe shall not touch any consecrated thing\u201d; see my comment to that verse. In fact, it is impossible to understand the situation here as referring simply to touching the sacred things. Eating them is prohibited explicitly in 7:20\u201321, where the penalty of cutting off is given. If even touching them were prohibited, it would be unnecessary to prohibit eating. (The Sifra explains it that way as well, noting that the rule does not apply until the donations are ready to \u201capproach\u201d the altar.) As to why cutting off must be mentioned in each of those verses and a third time in our verse, see my comment to 7:20. That person shall be cut off from before Me. One might have thought he would be cut off from one place and simply settle in some other place. But I am the LORD, and I am in every place.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Partakes of any sacred donation. OJPS translates more literally, but NJPS correctly understands that the point is that he \u201capproaches\u201d the sacred donations to eat of them.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
That person shall be cut off from before Me: I am the LORD. A person who is cut off from before Him cannot endure, as I have explained in my comments on the mystery of the Name.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
While in a state of uncleanness. More precisely, \u201chaving his uncleanness upon him\u201d (OJPS)\u2014completely upon him. But if he has already begun the process of purification (e.g., by bathing), he is not \u201ccut off\u201d for eating of the sacred donations, merely whipped. But this applies only to eating, not to serving in the Temple (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Of Aaron\u2019s offspring. This mentions only his offspring; how do I know it applies to Aaron himself? Because it continues, who has an eruption\u2014more literally, \u201cand he has an eruption.\u201d I might have thought that just as \u201cAaron\u201d (that is, the High Priest) can present the offerings even in the first stage of mourning, he might be allowed to do so in this case also. But the Hebrew specifies that this is forbidden even when it is \u201che,\u201d Aaron, who has an eruption. Until he is clean. At sunset.\u2014Or perhaps being clean means that he has immersed in a ritual bath?\u2014No, for v. 7 specifies, \u201cAs soon as the sun sets, he shall be clean.\u201d Anything made unclean by a corpse. Rather, \u201cany one\u201d made unclean by a corpse (OJPS).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Until he is clean. He must wait until his specific period of uncleanness is over.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Any swarming thing by which he is made unclean. A \u201cswarming thing by which he is made unclean\u201d is one that is technically large enough to convey uncleanness\u2014at least the size of a lentil. Or any human being by whom he is made unclean. A corpse, or even a fragment of one the size of an olive. Whatever his uncleanness. This is a catch-all phrase intended to include one who becomes unclean by touching another (live) human being who is ritually unclean\u2014one with a discharge, a woman who is having her period, one who has just given birth, or a leper.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
By which he is made unclean. The preposition l-, which would ordinarily mean \u201cto which,\u201d is here (correctly) translated as \u201cby which,\u201d that is, \u201cfor touching which.\u201d There is a comparable example in Gen. 20:13: \u201cWhatever place we come to, say there for me [not \u201cto me\u201d]: \u2018He is my brother.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The person who touches such. Any of the sources of uncleanness mentioned in vv. 4\u20135.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The person who touches such. The things mentioned in vv. 4\u20135. The time period of uncleanness in these cases is simply until evening.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Afterward he may eat of the sacred donations. The text merely says \u201cthe holy things\u201d (OJPS). He is permitted to eat some \u201cof\u201d the holy things when the sun sets\u2014but not all. NJPS follows B. Yev. 74b, which explains that the \u201choly things\u201d referred to here are the \u201csacred donations,\u201d the priests\u2019 share of the agricultural crop. But he may not eat of sacrificial offerings until he has brought his own offering, on the next day.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
As soon as the sun sets, he shall be clean. The verse clearly means what the English translations say: \u201cHe shall be clean.\u201d The occurrence of the feminine gender makes this crystal clear in 12:8, \u201cThe priest shall make expiation on her behalf, and she shall be clean.\u201d Moreover, there is no mention of the word \u201cday\u201d\u2014yet the Sages read the verse to say, \u201cAs soon as the sun sets and the day is cleaned away.\u201d Their tradition is that, no matter if the sun has set, the person is not clean until the light is completely gone. It is not that they understand the Hebrew differently; they are using the verse as a kind of mnemonic for this rule, as I explained in my comment to 21:2. That is why they read the verse as if it said, \u201cthe day is cleaned away.\u201d They are his food. Literally, \u201chis bread\u201d (OJPS), but NJPS translates correctly. See my comment to Exod. 16:4.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall be clean. But only partially so, otherwise there would be no need to make clear that he is permitted (for the time being) to eat of the agricultural tithes (Gersonides). For they are his food. These tithes are what he eats every day, so the Torah was not as strict with them as with other sacrificial food (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:8\u201311<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Again, why must we be told that a priest \u201cshall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts\u201d (v. 8), when this rule too has already been applied to all of Israel?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall not eat anything that died. This is not a rule about proper food, but one about ritual uncleanness. A bird of a kind that one might legally eat, but which has died rather than being properly slaughtered, does not convey uncleanness through touching or carrying, but only through eating. A priest who eats such a bird may not eat of the sacred donations. Or was torn by beasts. The Hebrew does not mean \u201ctorn by beasts\u201d in this context. It is a technical term that refers to an otherwise clean animal whose carcass, on being cut open after ritual slaughter, reveals signs of disease. Read the verse this way: \u201cIf a bird has died and [not or] is of a clean species.\u201d A bird species that may not be eaten is excluded from this rule.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
He shall not eat anything that died. Since he is permitted to eat a bird offering whose head is pinched off\u2014though killing it in that way makes it more resemble an animal that died\u2014the verse makes clear that he may not eat an animal unless it was ritually slaughtered.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts. Some people with mush for brains understand Ezek. 44:31 to mean \u201cPriests shall not eat anything killed or torn by birds or animals.\u201d But that is ridiculous! The Torah says he should not eat any such thing, thereby becoming unclean, because if he does he may not serve as priest.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts, thereby becoming unclean. He must be careful not to become unclean in this way. For if he does so he must scrupulously avoid eating of the sacred donations until he has ritually bathed and waited for the sun to set, rendering him ritually clean again. Having discussed the various other forms of uncleanness in vv. 4\u20135, the text now explicitly prohibits eating the sacred donations after eating anything that died or was torn. The same would apply to eating insects, but this is normally considered disgusting, while eating the meat of an animal that has not been properly slaughtered is not felt to be disgusting. The \u201ctorn\u201d animal referred to here is one that was killed in the field by a lion or a bear; an animal that is \u201ctorn\u201d but lives does not convey uncleanness. The animal of an unclean type, which cannot be slaughtered in a way that makes it fit to eat (see my comment to 11:24), falls under this verse\u2019s category of a thing that \u201cdied\u201d; so vv. 3\u20139 provide a comprehensive list of the ways in which one can become unclean. That is the straightforward interpretation of the verse. As Rashi explains, the Sages interpret the verse to refer specifically to clean birds; the Sifra adds other birds and animals to the prohibition because v. 5 says not \u201cif a man touches a swarming thing by which he is made unclean\u201d but \u201cany\u201d such thing.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall not eat anything that died or was torn. The technical meaning of \u201ctorn\u201d here is in fact meat that is \u201ctorn\u201d from the location in which it must be eaten\u2014from the temple precincts or from the city of Jerusalem (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They shall keep My charge. They shall keep from eating the sacred donations when their bodies are unclean. And die for it. We learn that violation of this rule is punishable by death at the hands of heaven.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They shall keep My charge, lest they incur guilt thereby and die for it. The masculine suffix \u201cit\u201d refers to the Temple, which is \u201cMy charge\u201d (a feminine word in Hebrew).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. Again, the text merely says that he shall not eat \u201ca holy thing,\u201d but (as NJPS recognizes) in context this clearly refers to the \u201csacred donations.\u201d No bound or hired laborer. A \u201cbound\u201d laborer is a slave who has refused his freedom at the end of six years and is therefore bound to his master until the jubilee year. A \u201chired\u201d laborer is one who is indentured to him for a period of years (a maximum of six). The text therefore teaches you that in either case the master acquires the rights to the man\u2019s work, but not to his body\u2014for the slave is not entitled to eat from his master\u2019s share of the sacred donations.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. See my grandfather\u2019s comment.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
No lay person. No one who is not of the offspring of Aaron.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But a person who is a priest\u2019s property by purchase may eat of them. This refers to a \u201cCanaanite\u201d (that is, non-Jewish) slave, whose body does belong to his master. Those that are born into his household. The children of his female slaves. The rule that a priest\u2019s wife may eat of the sacred donations is also derived from this verse, since she too is his \u201cproperty by purchase\u201d in the sense that he gives her a financial consideration as part of the marriage ceremony. But (as is explained in Sifrei Numbers) it is also derived from a second verse, \u201ceveryone of your household who is clean may eat it\u201d (Num. 18:11).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Those that are born into his household. Male or female, despite the grammatically masculine forms.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A person who is a priest\u2019s property by purchase may eat of them. Even an animal that is his property may eat of them. This clearly demonstrates that the fact that a non-Jewish slave may eat of the sacred donations says nothing about his status. Au contraire\u2014he can eat because he is the priest\u2019s property, unlike a Jewish slave, who is merely bound to service (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:12\u201316<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are we told that \u201cif a man eats of a sacred donation unwittingly, he shall pay the priest for the sacred donation, adding one-fifth of its value\u201d (v. 14), when this rule too has already been given, in 5:16? (And why is the \u201cram of the guilt offering\u201d mentioned there not mentioned here as well?)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A layman. A Levite or an ordinary Jew rather than a priest.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The sacred gifts. The breast and thigh.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Widowed or divorced. From the layman. And without offspring. From him. But if she has children from him, she may not eat of the sacred donations as long as they are alive. No lay person may eat of it. The repetition of this is to emphasize that the restriction applies only to a lay person. \u201cIt is a layman who may not eat of it\u201d\u2014not (as one might have thought) a priest who is in the first stage of mourning.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
She may eat of her father\u2019s food. As she originally did. No lay person may eat of it. If the priest\u2019s daughter has a non-priestly son, he may not eat of the priestly food. And in that case, to prevent him doing so, she may not eat of it either.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If a man eats of a sacred donation. Again, the reference is not to a \u201choly thing\u201d (OJPS) in general, but specifically to the sacred donations. He shall pay the priest for the sacred donation. Here it is OJPS that is more precise: He \u201cshall give unto the priest the holy thing.\u201d He must give the priest a thing that can be holy. He does not compensate him with money, but with nonsacred fruits that thereby take on the status of sacred donations.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall pay the priest for the sacred donation, adding one-fifth of its value. OJPS adheres more closely to the syntax of the original: \u201cThen he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give unto the priest the holy thing.\u201d But a more literal translation would be \u201c\u2026 and shall give it [the additional fifth] unto the priest with the holy thing.\u201d Or perhaps \u201cshall give\u201d is to be read with both parts of the phrase. In my opinion, however, neither of these interpretations is necessary. Adding a fifth \u201cunto it\u201d means that the original donation plus one-fifth (that is, one-fourth of the original amount, equaling one-fifth of the new total) is the new \u201choly thing.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall pay the priest for the sacred donation. As Rashi explains, the man must return the same commodity that he ate, with the extra fifth as a penalty payment; and what he gives him itself takes on the status of a sacred donation. This is the straightforward interpretation and is equally correct from a halakhic perspective. Ibn Ezra fully concurs.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If a man eats of a sacred donation unwittingly. In this context, it makes no difference if he ate it, drank it, or, as with oil, used it externally (Gersonides). He shall pay the priest for the sacred donation. Literally, he shall \u201cgive\u201d the sacred donation back to the priest (see OJPS). He has eaten it already, of course. But he must give the priest something that can be a sacred donation\u2014food that is not yet sacred, but is ritually clean (Bekhor Shor). Adding one-fifth of its value. He must pay the original amount to the priest to whom it belonged. But the added fifth can be given to any priest (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priests must not allow the Israelites to profane the sacred donations. By letting them eat them.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The sacred donations that they set aside for the LORD. That \u201cthey,\u201d the Israelites, set aside. See the next comment.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
To incur guilt. \u201cTo\u201d is incorrect here. What the verse is saying is that if lay Israelites eat the sacred donations, the priests themselves incur guilt. This is one of the three cases where R. Ishmael interprets \u201cthem\u201d or \u201chim\u201d as \u201cthemselves\u201d or \u201chimself.\u201d (See Sifrei Numbers.) The others are Num. 6:13, \u201cOn the day that his term as nazirite is completed, he shall bring himself to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d and Deut. 34:6, \u201cHe buried himself in the valley in the land of Moab, near Beth-peor; and no one knows his burial place to this day.\u201d Onkelos understands the verse to mean that the priests themselves are eating in a state of uncleanness, but R. Ishmael\u2019s interpretation makes this convoluted explanation unnecessary.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
By eating such sacred donations. See my grandfather\u2019s comment.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Or to incur guilt. The causative verb implies a double object. It is the priests who must not \u201ccause them,\u201d the Israelites, \u201cto bear the iniquity\u201d of profaning the sacred donations. They must warn them and instruct them so as to make sure that they do not do so by mistake.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
To incur guilt. I don\u2019t understand what Rashi is thinking here. If he is correct in saying that v. 15 refers to the Israelites eating the sacred donations, then the translations are certainly correct in understanding \u201cthem\u201d of our verse (as more literally translated by OJPS) to refer to the Israelites. So why does Rashi cite R. Ishmael\u2019s interpretation that the priests themselves incur guilt? Moreover, this particular commandment is nowhere found in the Talmud. It is forbidden for the priests to let the Israelites eat the sacred donations, but only because it is forbidden to give anyone something that they are forbidden to eat. Actually, v. 15 is a second version of the commandment (in v. 10) that the Israelites must not eat the sacred donations, repeated here to add the punishment for doing so: a penalty payment. On B. Sanh. 83a the Sages interpret the (apparently superfluous) repetition as an indication that eating untithed produce is punishable by death; the Sifra comes to a similar conclusion, but differs with regard to the penalty payment. In any case, the basic point is that this verse is about untithed produce, as the Sages explained it. The text first (in v. 14) prohibited eating the sacred tithes that have already been offered, and here in vv. 15\u201316 returns to prohibit eating anything from what the Israelites \u201cwill set aside for the LORD\u201d (as v. 15 literally says).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It is I the LORD who make them sacred. \u201cThem\u201d being the Israelites as well as their sacred donations (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:17\u201321<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:17<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses. Having mentioned the sacred donations, the text now warns that they must not be brought from blemished animals.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For any of the votive or any of the freewill offerings. Technically, a \u201cvotive\u201d offering is a case where the person vows that he is obligated to bring an offering; a \u201cfreewill\u201d offering is one where he vows to bring a particular thing as an offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers in Israel. With regard to votive or freewill offerings, the same rule applies to Israelites and strangers. For so it is written: \u201cThere shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger; it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages. You and the stranger shall be alike before the LORD; the same ritual and the same rule shall apply to you and to the stranger who resides among you\u201d (Num. 15:14\u201316). Votive or \u2026 freewill offerings. Our Sages have explained the distinction between them. Actually, of course, every votive offering is also a freewill offering, but not vice versa. It is obvious that every \u201cburnt offering\u201d (which is wholly consumed on the altar) must certainly be from an unblemished animal.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
For any of the votive or any of the freewill offerings. See Rashi\u2019s comment. In my opinion, however, the difference between the two is to be learned from the verb used to \u201cexpress\u201d a vow in v. 21; see also 27:2 and Num. 6:2; Num. 15:3, and Num. 15:8. The same verb is found in Joel 2:26: \u201cAnd you shall eat your fill and praise the name of the LORD your God who dealt so wondrously with you.\u201d A vow is something promised to God when you are in trouble. \u201cIf You will perform a wonder for me and save me from this trouble, I will bring You an offering.\u201d It is like what Jacob said, \u201cIf God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father\u2019s house \u2026 of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You\u201d (Gen. 28:20\u201322). See similarly \u201cThen Israel made a vow to the LORD and said, \u2018If You deliver this people into our hand, we will proscribe their towns\u2019 \u201d (Num. 21:2); \u201cThe men feared the LORD greatly; they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and they made vows\u201d (Jon. 1:16); and many other such cases. The rabbinic distinction from which Rashi draws his comment means that, if the animal selected by one who has vowed should die, he is still obligated. But if one brings an animal as a voluntary offering and it dies before it can be offered, there was and remains no general obligation. For when one vows out of distress, it is ordinarily a general vow directed at some future time, but one whose spirit moves him to give an offering selects it immediately. The point of our verse is simply that any such offering must fit the description given in v. 19. We might have thought that an offering brought to fulfill a vow must be somehow of higher quality than a freewill offering, but this is not so. That is what the verse is about.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
To be acceptable in your favor. And what is it that is acceptable, that is, agreeable, to Me? A male without blemish, from cattle or sheep or goats. But a bird offering does not have to be either male or without blemish. The only blemish that disqualifies it is if it is completely missing a limb.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It must, to be acceptable in your favor, be a male without blemish. As in Mal 1:8, \u201cWhen you present a blind animal for sacrifice\u2014it doesn\u2019t matter! When you present a lame or sick one\u2014it doesn\u2019t matter! Just offer it to your governor: Will he accept you? Will he show you favor?\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For an explicit vow. Where he has \u201cclearly uttered\u201d (OJPS) that he will bring a certain offering.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A sacrifice of well-being. This is a separate category from the \u201cburnt offering\u201d of v. 18 because, though it too must be without blemish, it need not be male (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:22\u201323<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Anything blind. The Hebrew word is not the adjective \u201cblind\u201d (as OJPS might be read to say) but a noun for blindness. Read vv. 21\u201322 as follows: \u201cThere must be no defect in it, nor blindness, nor shall it be injured or maimed\u201d and so forth. Maimed. The Hebrew word refers specifically to a case where the eyelid or the lip is split or otherwise mutilated. Boil-scar. See my comment to 21:20. Scurvy. Rather, \u201cEgyptian lichen\u201d (see again my comment to 21:20). The Hebrew noun is related to the verb used when Samson \u201cembraced the two middle pillars that the temple rested upon\u201d (Judg. 16:29); it refers to a condition that maintains its hold on the person to the day of his death, for there is no remedy. Such you shall not offer. OJPS makes a little clearer than NJPS that these exact Hebrew words are repeated three times (here, v. 20, and v. 24). The technical consequences of this threefold repetition are that we are prohibited from designating such animals as sacred offerings, from slaughtering them, and from dashing their blood against the altar. You shall not put any of them on the altar as offerings by fire. More precisely, \u201cnor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar\u201d (OJPS). This is a fourth prohibition.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Blind. Grammatically, the word looks like a noun; but the translations correctly understand that it is an adjective, in the feminine form because the Hebrew word for \u201ceye\u201d is feminine. Injured or maimed. Some say the Hebrew words apply (respectively) to the arm and the leg, but what they really mean is \u201cbroken or cut.\u201d With a wen. The Hebrew word is related to the word translated \u201ca growth in the eye\u201d in 21:20. As a general rule, we rely on tradition to understand these obscure words, not on our own faulty knowledge. Such you shall not offer to the LORD. By uttering a vow. You shall not put any of them on the altar as offerings by fire to the LORD. Nor may one offer the sacrificial parts (which may not themselves be blemished) from them.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
With a wen. Rather, a scar on the white of the eye\u2014if it were on the iris, he would be blind (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You may, however, present as a freewill offering. To be sold to pay for the upkeep of the Temple. Extended. A limb that is longer than the limb it matches. Contracted. Rather, \u201cuncleft\u201d\u2014an animal born without clefts in its hoofs. But it will not be accepted for a vow. \u201cAccepted\u201d is imprecise; rather it will not be \u201cacceptable.\u201d What kind of thing is described as \u201cacceptable\u201d? An offering on the altar.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
As a freewill offering. See my grandfather\u2019s comment.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
With a limb extended. Rather, \u201ctoo long\u201d (OJPS); see my comment to 21:18. Or contracted. Rather, its opposite, \u201ctoo short\u201d (OJPS). The Hebrew word is related to the phrase \u201ccity of refuge,\u201d a city to which one is \u201crestricted.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You may, however, present as a freewill offering an ox or a sheep with a limb extended or contracted; but it will not be accepted for a vow. See Rashi\u2019s comments on this verse. According to him, we must read the verse as follows (using OJPS, which more closely follows the Hebrew syntax): \u201cEither a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing too long or too short, that mayest thou offer for a freewill-offering or for a vow; but it shall not be accepted\u201d for the altar. For in this respect there is no difference whatsoever between a freewill offering and a vow\u2014both of them are acceptable as contributions to the general operating fund but prohibited as offerings on the altar. The text has already made this clear, with regard to burnt offerings in v. 18 and with regard to sacrifices of well-being in v. 21, and it is explained this way in the Sifra. I believe, however, that I can settle the meaning of the text more in accordance with the punctuation (which the translations follow). The same root used to name freewill offerings, \u05e0\u05d3\u05d1, is found as well in most of the places where contributions to the general fund are discussed (e.g., Exod. 35:22; Ezra 1:4; 1 Chron. 29:17). As 2 Kings 12:5 makes clear in other language, no one is obligated to make this kind of contribution; it is done out of the goodness of one\u2019s heart. We therefore interpret \u201ca freewill offering\u201d as referring to such a contribution unless the text goes on to refer specifically to a burnt offering or the like. The language of vowing, however, uses the root \u05e0\u05d3\u05e8, and this is found in connection with offerings on the altar (e.g., Ps. 56:13; 66:13; 116:17\u201318). So that is what our verse is saying: One may \u201cbring\u201d anything one wants to the Temple, but a defective animal cannot be offered on the altar. Despite the translations, our verse carefully says not that one may \u201coffer\u201d a defective ox or sheep, but that one may \u201cdo\u201d a freewill offering of such an animal, as if to say, \u201cWhatever it is in your power to do, do with all your might\u201d (Eccles. 9:10). But it is not acceptable as a vowed (that is, sacrificial) offering. The Sages had to read the verse this way, because it is in no way possible that the defects mentioned in v. 22 are completely unacceptable but those in v. 23 are partially unacceptable and partially acceptable. Such a distinction between the various kinds of offerings is simply not found in the Torah. It is possible, however, to understand the text to mean that one can designate a particular animal as an offering for the operating fund even if it has \u201ca limb extended or contracted,\u201d but one may not bring such an animal in fulfillment of a general vow. But let us say, following the interpretation of the Sages, that this kind of animal may only be given to the general fund, whether as a freewill offering or as the fulfillment of a vow. For \u201cdoing\u201d an animal is not the same as \u201coffering\u201d it. There is no doubt about that. If an animal with \u201ca limb extended or contracted\u201d (a defect that the animal has from its formation in the womb) may be contributed to the temple fund, then certainly one that is blind or injured (minor defects due to accident) may be contributed, and it goes without saying that the same is true for one with a wen or the like. Or perhaps vv. 22 and 23 are to be read together as applying to all the various sorts of defects mentioned in the combined verses\u2014you may do them as a contribution, but they shall not be offered on the altar. Even if they are already on the altar, they must be taken down. But note further the reading of the Sifra: \u201cit [alone] will not be accepted for a vow.\u201d But an unblemished animal may not be contributed to the temple fund; one who does so violates this commandment.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
With a limb extended. Rather, \u201cwith an extra limb,\u201d e.g., five legs (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:24\u201328<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Anything with its testes bruised or crushed or torn or cut. The Hebrew text has only the adjectives; in fact, they refer not only to the testes but also to the penis itself. \u201cTorn\u201d means torn by hand; this applies if they are torn off of the tubes that are connected to them, even if the scrotum itself is not torn off. \u201cCut\u201d means that they are literally cut with a sharp object; again, this applies even if they remain inside the scrotum. You shall have no such practices in your own land. \u201cSuch practices\u201d refers to castrating animals. This may not be done anywhere in your land, even to an unclean animal (which could not be offered on the altar). But the phrase cannot possibly mean that this applies only in the land of Israel. For it is an obligation of the individual, not a rule about the land itself, and all such rules obligating the individual apply both inside and outside the land.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Bruised. The word is related to \u201cThere their breasts were squeezed\u201d (Ezek. 23:3). Crushed. \u201cI broke it to bits\u201d (Deut. 9:21). Both of these two words refer to the testicles, though that word does not appear in the Hebrew. Torn. \u201cWhereat he pulled the tendons apart, as a strand of tow comes apart at the touch of fire\u201d (Judg. 16:9). You shall have no such practices in your own land. Altering God\u2019s creation.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Nor shall you accept such animals from a foreigner. If a gentile brings an animal to a priest to offer it on his behalf to heaven, you shall not offer a blemished animal for him. Even though the other descendants of Noah are not forbidden to offer blemished animals (except in extreme cases, like animals with a missing limb), this applies to their own altars out in the country. But you may not offer them on their behalf on the altar of the Tabernacle. You may, however, accept from them an animal without blemish. That is why v. 18 refers to \u201cAny man of the house of Israel or of the strangers in Israel\u201d who presents a burnt offering. They may bring votive offerings and freewill offerings just like an Israelite. Mutilated. NJPS is correct; see Onkelos.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Nor shall you accept such animals from a foreigner. One should not think, \u201cIt is a foreigner\u2019s offering, anyway, so it doesn\u2019t matter if I bring it like this.\u201d Mutilated. Note that exactly the same Hebrew word appears in Exod. 40:15, where it derives from a completely different root and means \u201canointed\u201d!<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Nor shall you accept such animals from a foreigner. It should be clarified that we do not accept any sacrificial animals from a foreigner except for whole burnt offerings. We do not accept sin or guilt offerings, since they are under no obligation for those, and we do not accept offerings of well-being, since foreigners are not on such a level that they should (as it were) eat at the same table with God (Gersonides). Their intent may be to bring scorn upon the altar (Abarbanel). Castrated animals are in fact praiseworthy among them, being fatter, and worthy of a king\u2019s gift\u2014but for us \u201cthey are mutilated\u201d and cannot be offered (Sforno). For they are mutilated. I heard Eliezer of Beaugency explain these Hebrew words as meaning \u201cthough they are fat.\u201d In Exod. 40:15 the root means \u201canointed,\u201d and oil and fat are closely related in Hebrew. Animals that are gelded are fatter than those that still have their testicles, but even so, having a defect they are unacceptable (Bekhor Shor). The foreigners who bring such animals are \u201cmutilated\u201d by their idolatrous faith (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:26<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses. Having finished with the defective animals, the text proceeds to animals that are unacceptable for other reasons.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:27<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born. But only when it is naturally born, not when it is removed from the womb by other means.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
An ox or a sheep or a goat is born. It is not, of course, an \u201cox\u201d that is born, but a calf (and so forth); the newborns are called here by the names applying to the full-grown animals. Hebrew often applies the results of an action prematurely, as in \u201cYou strip the naked of their clothes\u201d (Job 22:6); \u201cThe dead person is put to death\u201d (Deut. 17:6); \u201cIf a faller should fall from it\u201d (Deut. 22:8). In our case, the words simply describe the species, rather than specify the adult animal. From the eighth day on. In just the same way, a boy is circumcised only after a quarter of a month has passed.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born. If it is not naturally born, that is a sign that it is lacking in some way. It may have been aroused to come forth from the womb prematurely because of lack of sufficient nourishment or some such reason (Gersonides). It shall stay seven days with its mother. Like a leper or one contaminated by death, it must be seven days removed from uncleanness before it can be properly offered to God (Hizkuni). But it need not literally have a mother for all seven of these days; if she dies, it is not a sign that there is something wrong with the newborn (Gersonides). Its weakened condition during these seven days is considered a defect that prevents it from being offered (Abarbanel). From the eighth day on it shall be acceptable. Exod. 22:29 says that such an animal may (and if a first-born, must) be set aside for sacred use; our verse says that it may be offered as a sacrifice (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:28<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
No animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young. The Hebrew is grammatically masculine. But in fact it is only the mother that may not be slaughtered with its young (male or female). The father may be slaughtered with its young. The same rule applies if the young one is slaughtered first; the order of the Hebrew words is not specific here.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
No animal from the herd or from the flock. Literally, \u201cox or sheep\u201d (not \u201ccow or ewe,\u201d as OJPS has it); see my comments to v. 27 and to Exod. 23:19. The rule applies to male animals as well as to females.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
On the same day with its young. Rashi decides the law in accordance with the view that we pay no attention to the sire\u2019s role in creating the animal. Onkelos follows it too, translating the masculine suffixes of the Hebrew with feminine suffixes in Aramaic, and this is correct according to the Talmud as well. Now, when the text is referring only to female animals as opposed to those of both sexes, it commonly specifies this explicitly. So our verse could have been expected to say, \u201cNo cow or ewe shall be slaughtered on the same day with her young.\u201d But we have just been told, \u201cWhen an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall stay seven days with its mother\u201d (v. 27); our verse is written the way it is because it is adding an additional rule to this one about \u201can ox or a sheep or a goat.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
No animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young. It makes no difference whether they are slaughtered as an offering or for meat. As in Deut. 22:6, it is a matter of compassion (Bekhor Shor). We learn that slaughtering for meat is included because here, unlike the surrounding context, the text does not say that it is slaughtered \u201cto the Lord\u201d (Gersonides). Literally, \u201cyou shall not kill him and his young\u201d (compare OJPS). Since those doing the slaughter are male, the masculine pronouns are used to arouse their compassion (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:29\u201332<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:29<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Sacrifice it so that it may be acceptable in your favor. From the very beginning of the process you must intend that \u201cit shall be eaten on the same day\u201d (v. 30). That is, it must be slaughtered with that specific intent. You may not slaughter it with the intent to eat it only the next day. If you sacrifice it with the intent of violating this rule, it will not be acceptable. Another reading: you must sacrifice it (as the Hebrew may be read to say) \u201caccording to your will,\u201d that is, intentionally. Someone who is fooling around with the knife and slaughters the animal accidentally has invalidated it for sacrifice. The text has already established these rules with regard to sacrifices that must be eaten before the third day, but it is repeated here to make clear that the same rule applies to sacrifices that must be eaten before the next day.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When you sacrifice a thanksgiving offering. What is added here (by comparison with 7:15) is that such a sacrifice must be done in such a way that it may be acceptable in your favor.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It shall be eaten on the same day. The intent of this phrase is to specify that it must be slaughtered with the intent to eat it on the same day. For the time when it is to be eaten has already been specified: \u201cAnd the flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being shall be eaten on the day that it is offered\u201d (7:15). I am the LORD. Know who has decreed this, and do not take it lightly.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall be eaten on the same day. It thus contrasts with the rule that a newborn animal and its parent shall not be eaten on the same day. I am the LORD. So your thanksgiving must be genuine.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall faithfully observe My commandments. OJPS is more precise: you shall \u201ckeep My commandments, and do them.\u201d In this expression, \u201ckeeping\u201d the commandments means \u201ckeeping\u201d them in mind by constant study.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall faithfully observe My commandments. Rather, you shall \u201ckeep\u201d them in your heart \u201cand do them\u201d (see OJPS). I am the LORD. I can find out what is in the heart, and I can see everything that is done.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall faithfully observe My commandments. That is, the commandments outlined in vv. 17\u201330. You will find a similar statement in 19:37.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I am the LORD. \u201cI am the LORD\u201d or (as it is sometimes translated) \u201cI the LORD\u201d occurs 20 times in the book of Leviticus at the end of a verse (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not profane My holy name. By deliberately transgressing My word. That I may be sanctified. The text has already made clear that it is prohibited to profane God\u2019s name; what positive action is implied by this added phrase? That you must give yourself over even to death, if necessary \u201cto sanctify My name.\u201d But this applies not to an individual, but only to one who is in the midst of the Israelite people. If necessary, however, one must do this with perfect willingness to die. For if he goes to his death assuming that a miracle will save him, no miracle will in fact be performed for him. You will notice that, when Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were to be thrown into the fiery furnace, they did not rely on a miracle, but told King Nebuchadnezzar, \u201cOur God whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will save us from your power, O king. But even if He does not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the statue of gold that you have set up\u201d (Dan. 3:17\u201318). We will not serve your god whether or not our God saves us.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not profane My holy name. You, the priests, shall not do so. This follows naturally after the previous section, in which the priests are commanded not to offer a mother and its young on the same day\u2014not for themselves and not for the other Israelites. Even vv. 29\u201330, about the thanksgiving offering, may be directed specifically at the priests. For the next chapter begins by Moses being told to address the Israelites (23:2). That I may be sanctified in the midst of the Israelite people. Here too, the Israelites are referred to in the third person; it is the priests who are being addressed.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not profane My holy name. By being \u201cthe cheat who has an unblemished male in his flock, but for his vow sacrifices a blemished animal to the LORD!\u201d (Mal. 1:14). Just as Aaron and his sons were instructed to be scrupulous \u201clest they profane My holy name\u201d (v. 2) so too must \u201cyou,\u201d the Israelites, \u201cnot profane My holy name.\u201d That I may be sanctified in the midst of the Israelite people. According to our Sages, this too is a commandment: \u201cI will be hallowed among the children of Israel\u201d (OJPS)\u2014we must hallow Him by letting ourselves be killed rather than transgress His commandments.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:33\u201323:2<\/p>\n
Leviticus 22:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Who brought you out of the land of Egypt. With this proviso\u2014that you be willing, if necessary, to sanctify My name. I the LORD. I can be relied on to give you your reward.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God, I the LORD. The whole concludes with \u201cI am the Lord,\u201d the first of the Ten Commandments and the essence of all the commandments.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God. This is the explanation (which applies to all the commandments) of why we must sanctify His name for the commandments\u2014we are His slaves, whom He redeemed from Egypt.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God. I brought you out to lead you without an intermediary between us, as if following My holy ways made you into transcendent, incorporeal beings (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people. Although these are My fixed times, nonetheless you, the Israelites, shall proclaim them. You must add a leap month whenever it is necessary, so that exiles who have uprooted themselves from their foreign locales but not yet made it to Jerusalem will have time to reach it before Passover.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Which you shall proclaim as sacred occasions. Which you shall schedule as sacred times. \u201cProclamation\u201d of sacred occasions always refers to scheduling them: \u201cThe Lord \u2026 has proclaimed a set time against me\u201d (Lam. 1:15). The translation of Onkelos is to be understood this way, as is the reference in Eccles. 2:15 to a \u201cdestined\u201d fate.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
These are My fixed times. The text now moves from discussing which animals may be offered to the occasions on which they are offered, beginning with the Sabbath. \u201cThese\u201d sabbaths\u2014the many sabbaths of each year\u2014are My fixed times.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people. The festivals are not the priests\u2019 business more than they are the business of the rest of Israel, so this section is addressed to the Israelites as a whole and not specifically to Aaron and his sons. The reason they are mentioned here in Leviticus, which ordinarily deals with things that concern the priests, is that special sacrifices must be made on those days. Indeed some allusions are made to these sacrifices, e.g., v. 8 and v. 37. But they were not treated at length because in fact they were not intended to be carried out while the Israelites were in the wilderness. Only after Num. 26:53, when those who would enter the land have been counted and God tells Moses, \u201cAmong these shall the land be apportioned,\u201d are the sacrifices (other than the regular daily offerings) that they were to perform as soon as they entered the land (and ever after) described, in Numbers 28\u201329. Only on the Day of Atonement did Aaron do \u201cas the LORD had commanded Moses\u201d (16:34) in the wilderness. The sacrifices mentioned here in v. 12 and vv. 18\u201320 clearly are intended only to happen \u201cWhen you enter the land that I am giving to you and you reap its harvest\u201d (v. 10). But the festival days themselves went into effect immediately. These are My fixed times. In my opinion, this is an introduction to what follows after v. 4: the dates of the various festivals (\u201cin the first month\u201d and so forth). As the beginning of that verse shows, the topic of the festivals, which is interrupted by the mention of the Sabbath in v. 3, resumes there. The purpose of mentioning \u201cMy fixed times\u201d here\u2014days on which certain types of work may nevertheless be done\u2014is to contrast them to the Sabbath, which must remain a day \u201cof complete rest\u201d (v. 3) on which no work whatsoever may be done. The warning to do no work on the Sabbath is given many times throughout the Torah. Here the insistence on \u201ccomplete rest\u201d alludes to the rule that, though food preparation is ordinarily allowed on festival days, it is forbidden if the festival day should fall on the Sabbath. Note that Exodus 35, describing the building of the Tabernacle, is similarly interrupted, right at the beginning, by a reference to the Sabbath, whose observance takes priority. There too, Exod. 35:4 repeats what Exod. 35:1 had said before the interruption. The fact that the phrase \u201cyou shall make offerings by fire to the LORD\u201d (vv. 8, 25, 27, 36, 37) does not occur with the Sabbath commandment is further confirmation that the Sabbath is to be viewed as separate from the festivals; moreover, the summary at the end of the chapter says, \u201cThose are the set times of the LORD that you shall celebrate as sacred occasions, bringing offerings by fire to the LORD \u2026 apart from the sabbaths of the LORD\u201d (vv. 37\u201338). Further confirmation comes from the fact that v. 4 is not introduced by \u201cthe LORD spoke to Moses, saying\u201d (v. 1) as is the paragraph for each of the subsequent festivals. V. 5 is introduced by v. 1, but the Sabbath verse intervenes to make clear that the rules for festivals do not apply to it\u2014not to give the rules for the Sabbath itself. There is in fact a rabbinic interpretation that follows these same lines. Which you shall proclaim as sacred occasions. \u201cHoly convocations\u201d (OJPS) comes a bit closer to the sense. They are occasions of \u201ccalling,\u201d on which everyone is called to gather and sanctify them. It is in fact a commandment for all Jews to gather in the house of God on festival days in fresh clothing to sanctify them publicly with prayer and praise to God, and to make them days of feasting. For our tradition applies Ezra\u2019s words on Rosh Hashanah to all the festivals in general: \u201cGo, eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared, for the day is holy to our Lord. Do not be sad, for your rejoicing in the LORD is the source of your strength\u201d (Neh. 8:10). NJPS follows Onkelos, who translates as if this were not from \u05e7\u05e8\u05d0, \u201ccall,\u201d but from \u05e7\u05e8\u05d4, \u201chappen.\u201d The latter word is indeed sometimes spelled with an \u05d0, e.g., in Gen. 49:1. The sense would then be \u201cyou shall proclaim them as sacred on whatever day of the week they occur.\u201d Our Sages explain this aspect to mean that one should not behave as one does on an ordinary day, but should make them a sacred \u201chappening,\u201d sanctifying them by wearing dress clothes and enjoying special food and drink. And of course Onkelos and NJPS share this opinion.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people and say to them. God says this to Moses 13 times in the Torah, and once to Moses and Aaron together (Masorah). These are My fixed times. They are sacred to the Lord whether Israel sanctifies them or not (Abarbanel). On Sabbath and festivals alike, you must occupy yourselves with study of Torah and other holy things. If instead you occupy yourselves with weekday affairs and human pleasures alone, they are not My fixed times but yours. In that case, as Isa. 1:14 puts it, \u201cYour new moons and fixed seasons fill Me with loathing; they are become a burden to Me, I cannot endure them\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:3\u20134<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Is the Sabbath (v. 3) really just another of the \u201cfixed times\u201d (v. 2)? If so, why are the \u201cset times\u201d (the same words in Hebrew) introduced again in v. 4? If not, why is it mentioned here at all?
\n\u2666 Why are the sacrifices offered on the Sabbath not mentioned here as they are for the other sacred occasions?
\n\u2666 Why does the Sabbath commandment not include a phrase like \u201cthat day\u201d or \u201con that same day\u201d as do all the others? If, as the Sages explain, this indicates that the date may not be postponed, that certainly applies to the Sabbath as well!
\n\u2666 Why are the passover offering and its associated festival not introduced by \u201cThe LORD spoke to Moses, saying\u201d as all the other holidays are? It is the first of all the fixed times and certainly deserves its own divine utterance.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A sabbath. What does the Sabbath have to do with the festivals? It is mentioned here to teach you that anyone who desecrates God\u2019s festivals is considered to have desecrated His Sabbaths, while anyone who keeps them is regarded as having kept the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall be a sabbath of the LORD. See my comment to Exod. 16:23. Throughout your settlements. Both in your land and outside of it, at home and on the road.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
On the seventh day there shall be a sabbath of complete rest. This too is one of \u201cthe fixed times of the LORD, which you shall proclaim as sacred occasions\u201d (v. 2), but it is separated from the rest of the festivals by a second heading, in v. 4, \u201cThese are the set times of the LORD, the sacred occasions.\u201d (As you can see from OJPS, which translates more carefully here, the same Hebrew word is used in both places.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
These are the set times of the LORD. Where the \u201cfixed times\u201d (the Hebrew uses the same words; see OJPS) were mentioned in v. 2, the verse taught us about adding a leap month to the year. Here, we learn about the sanctification of the new month.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
These are the set times of the LORD. The text now proceeds from the Sabbath to the festivals. The Sabbaths, which always occur on Saturday, were \u201cMy fixed times\u201d (v. 2), but the festivals are to occur each at its appointed time\u2014on whatever day of the week it falls. Here is a general rule about the calendar: in temple times, the festival days were set by the court. Do you see what it says about King Hezekiah? \u201cThe king and his officers and the congregation in Jerusalem had agreed to keep the Passover in the second month\u201d (2 Chron. 30:2). He did not decide to insert a leap month that year until after the month of Nisan had already begun. He took the rap for that one from the Sages\u2014you cannot add an extra Nisan once Nisan has started! According to our tradition, the court would look at a number of factors in determining the calendar. They say of R. Akiva that he once set three leap years in a row (on an emergency basis). Interestingly, there is not the slightest indication anywhere in the Bible of how the calendar was set in those days. What Saadia says about their having used our current formula for the calendar is not true, for there are clear proofs (and several stories) in both the Mishnah and the Gemara indicating that the first day of Passover could fall on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday. \u2026 The bottom line is that we in the exile must rely (as the Sages instruct us) on the automatic insertion of leap months. We have received this from the mouths of prophets as well \u2014and we cannot do better than to listen to them. They instituted the rule of having two festival days in the Diaspora because we are in doubt when the month actually begins. Some people have the custom of fasting for the Day of Atonement on both the 9th and the 10th of Tishrei, matching the Jewish calendar and the astronomical calendar. But some years they would have to fast on the 8th of Tishrei. The whole practice is pointless, since even if we returned to setting the calendar by observation, the two calendars would still not necessarily coincide precisely, depending on where on earth and at what time of day the new moon appeared.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Which you shall celebrate each at its appointed time. More precisely, which you shall \u201cproclaim\u201d each at its appointed time (see OJPS). The Sabbath, which occurs on the same day every week, need not be proclaimed. But the other festivals may occur on any day of the week. Our Sages regard this \u201cproclamation\u201d as an allusion to including leap months in the year, which of course determines when the festivals will fall.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
These are the set times of the LORD. We do not observe the Saturday Sabbath in honor of Saturn, or Passover in honor of Aries, or Sukkot in honor of Libra, nor to take a day off to enjoy the nice spring or fall weather. We observe them because God created the world and rested on the seventh day, passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, and protected them with the Cloud of His Presence in the desert (Abarbanel). The sacred occasions. The ones that are \u201cproclaimed\u201d (see OJPS to v. 2) by the court\u2014even if they do so mistakenly (Gersonides). They must be proclaimed by the court because otherwise everyone might rely on his own observation of the moon and observe the festivals at a time of his own choosing, as do the Karaites of our own day. For the Karaites in Egypt do not observe the Day of Atonement on the same day as those in Constantinople, and neither of them observes the same day as those in Damascus or Jerusalem (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:5\u20138<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since the passover offering must be eaten with unleavened bread, how can vv. 5 and 6 assign them to two different days?
\n\u2666 Why is the phrase \u201ca sabbath of complete rest\u201d not included here, as with some of the other days?
\n\u2666 Why is it referred to as \u201cthe LORD\u2019S Feast\u201d (v. 6) when it is really Israel\u2019s?
\n\u2666 Why is the phrase \u201con that same day\u201d not included?
\n\u2666 Why is Passover not referred to as a \u201csolemn gathering,\u201d as is the Feast of Booths (and as Passover itself is in Deut. 16:8)?
\n\u2666 Why is Passover not \u201ca law for all time in all your settlements, throughout the ages\u201d (which of course it is) as are the others?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
At twilight. Rather, as soon as the sun begins to incline toward evening\u2014from noon onward. A passover offering to the LORD. \u201cThe LORD\u2019S passover\u201d (OJPS) is more literal, but NJPS understands correctly. This is not a reference to the festival of Passover, but to the offering called by that name.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
At twilight. See my comment to Exod. 12:6.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
At twilight, there shall be a passover offering. The evening of the first day, and the night that follows, are called \u201cthe Feast of Passover\u201d after this offering. The rest of the holiday is called \u201cthe Feast of Unleavened Bread\u201d (Hizkuni). The list begins with Passover not only because it is the first in the calendar, but because it is the cause of all the other festivals (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your occupations. OJPS \u201cservile work\u201d more clearly indicates that the Hebrew uses two words here, but they have missed the nuance. The Hebrew refers not merely to \u201coccupations,\u201d but to that kind of abodah, \u201cwork,\u201d that you consider important and necessary because refraining from it might cause you l\u2019abbed, to suffer loss. This is what I understand from the Sifra\u2019s discussion of this phrase, where they show that this kind of work is permitted on the intermediate days of a festival.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Your occupations. Rashi\u2019s comment here is completely wrong. If he were correct, the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath might have been expressed in exactly the same way. Moreover, the Sages agree that the Torah itself does not give this rule, leaving it up to them to decide what sort of work is permitted on the intermediate days of the festival. The Hebrew word abodah, like the English \u201cwork,\u201d is a general one, and nowhere carries the meaning of work that must be done today because it cannot wait until tomorrow. Rather, the phrase used here refers to all work other than that of food preparation, which is neither \u201cservile\u201d work nor one\u2019s \u201coccupation,\u201d but work that is done to provide for one\u2019s enjoyment. Exod. 12:16 makes all of this quite clear: \u201cYou shall celebrate a sacred occasion on the first day, and a sacred occasion on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them; only what every person is to eat, that alone may be prepared for you.\u201d The expression used for the other festivals is simply a shorthand way of saying the same thing, which it is phrased quite carefully to do. Deut. 16:8, which says \u201cyou shall not do work,\u201d is the exception that proves the rule. For Exod. 12:16 has already explicitly permitted cooking on the festival days of Passover. Contrast our v. 3 (Sabbath) and v. 28 (the Day of Atonement), which use the expression, \u201cyou shall do no manner of work\u201d (see OJPS). Rabbenu Hananel explains as follows: \u201cThe Hebrew expression used here refers to gainful work\u2014sowing, harvesting, plowing, and the like. Food preparation does not fall into this category.\u201d With regard to what kind of work may be done on the intermediate days of the festival, the text has left this decision to the Sages. All the classic sources I have cited agree on this. We have explained this at great length to demonstrate that they all agree with our own clear, correct explanation. I have nevertheless found one obstacle to this conclusion, in the Sifrei to Num. 28:18, which ignores the phrase we have been discussing and says that the rule of Exod. 12:16 applies on this \u201csacred occasion\u201d as well. Now, it seems to me that the Sages understand \u201cwork\u201d to refer to toilsome labor that one does for someone else (see 25:39; Gen. 9:25; Gen. 14:4, and elsewhere). It might therefore be that light work which one does for one\u2019s own pleasure would be permitted whether or not it involves food preparation, and that excessive food preparation\u2014of the kind that a servant would do for a master\u2014would be forbidden. The Sifrei, therefore, asked how we know that all food preparation, no matter how laborious, is permitted, and that other work, even the lightest tasks, are nonetheless considered \u201cservile work\u201d and are prohibited; that is why they took a different approach. In any case, the bottom line is that the prohibition of work \u201cat your occupations\u201d means that food preparation is nonetheless permitted.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Seven days. A sennight of days. Wherever the construct form of the numeral is used, as it is here, it does not mean seven individual days, but a single period seven days long\u2014and the same goes for eight, six, five, or three. You shall make offerings by fire. These are the additional offerings described in Num. 28:19. But why are they mentioned here? To teach you that the lack of one kind of offering does not prevent you from bringing the others. You shall make them nonetheless\u2014if there are no bulls, bring the rams; if there are neither bulls nor rams, you must still bring the lambs.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Offerings by fire to the LORD. \u201cTwo bulls of the herd, one ram, and seven yearling lambs\u201d (Num. 28:19).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Seven days you shall make offerings by fire to the LORD. With regard to offerings, all seven days are full festival days, though this is not so with regard to work. The offerings themselves are specified only in Numbers 28\u201329, as I have explained in my comment to v. 2. Our Sages take the phrase to mean that we must make some kind of offering by fire even if we do not have all of the specified sacrifices; and this is correct.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Offerings by fire. The commentators explain these as the additional offerings specified in Numbers 28\u201329, but I do not believe this is correct. Our chapter is concerned merely with the dates of the festivals. It is more probable that the offerings referred to here are the regular daily offerings specified in Exod. 29:38 (Abarbanel). The seventh day shall be a sacred occasion. The splitting of the sea took place on the seventh day of the exodus (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:9\u201311<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The first sheaf of your harvest. Rather, \u201cthe first omer of your harvest.\u201d \u201cOmer\u201d is simply the name for the measure that is a tenth of an ephah: \u201cwhen they measured it by the omer\u201d (Exod. 16:18). But this is not the first omer of an individual\u2019s harvest; it is the first of \u201cyour,\u201d the Israelites, harvest anywhere in the country.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people and say to them. Speak to them to tell them that they should gather, and then say to them: When you enter the land. They kept the Sabbath in the wilderness, and observed the passover at Mount Sinai. But the other festivals would not be celebrated until they entered the land. (Remember that this section is being spoken just after the erection of the Tabernacle, at the beginning of Nisan.)<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Speak to the Israelite people. Since each festival will now have some particular added to the general instructions for convocation and rest from work already given, each is separately introduced with the phrase, \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people.\u201d The Feast of Weeks does not have such a separate introduction because its date is connected with the \u201csheaf of elevation offering\u201d (v. 15); so it follows as part of that same passage. The Day of Atonement too is missing this phrase (v. 27), since it and the Day of Remembrance on the 1st day of the seventh month form a single unit having to do with repentance and expiation. So it is covered by \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people\u201d of v. 24. Nonetheless, the two distinct occasions in both these passages are separated by small breaks in the Hebrew text after vv. 14 and 25. When you enter the land \u2026 and you reap its harvest. You must not harvest your land until after you have harvested the first sheaf and brought it to the priest. \u201cYou shall count off seven weeks; start to count the seven weeks when the sickle is first put to the standing grain\u201d (Deut. 16:9). You must not lift the sickle to the grain until you have started to count. We learn, moreover, that the ritual of the first sheaf was not practiced until the Israelites had left the wilderness, nor is it practiced anywhere outside the land of Israel.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The first sheaf of your harvest. It is not polite to eat of the harvest before you have given a gift from it to the Holy One. A \u201csheaf\u201d is an \u201comer,\u201d one-tenth of an ephah, because ordinarily that is how much grain comes out of one sheaf (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall elevate the sheaf before the LORD. Rather, he shall \u201cwave\u201d it (OJPS). Like every such action, he moves it not only up and down but also back and forth\u2014up and down to prevent harmful dews, back and forth to prevent dangerous winds. For acceptance in your behalf. If you offer it following this procedure, it will be accepted in your behalf. On the day after the sabbath. That is, on the day after the first festival day of Passover. For if it literally meant \u201cSabbath\u201d here, how would you know which Sabbath is meant?<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
On the day after the sabbath. On the day after the first day of the festival.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For acceptance in your behalf. Some, based on this verse, interpret every lirtzonkhem as \u201cfor acceptance in your behalf,\u201d but what it means is that you must offer the sheaf \u201cwillingly.\u201d It is bringing \u201ca lamb of the first year without blemish\u201d (v. 12) that makes your actions \u201cacceptable.\u201d The day after the sabbath. According to the Sages, this means \u201cthe day after the festival.\u201d The deniers of tradition said that it means just what it says. But the believers brought many proofs of other occasions referred to as \u201csabbaths\u201d: the sabbatical year (25:4), the jubilee year, the great fast of the Day of Atonement (v. 32), and the day of \u201cloud blasts\u201d (v. 24), which are described as days of shabbaton, \u201ccomplete rest.\u201d The first and eighth days of Sukkot are also described as shabbaton (v. 39). Moreover, the seven \u201csabbaths\u201d of v. 15 are weeks (see similarly 2 Kings 11:9); the seventh-day Sabbath would not have to be described as \u201ccomplete.\u201d One scholar from Rome supported the traditional interpretation of this phrase by pointing to Josh. 5:11, \u201cOn the day after the passover, on that very day, they ate of the produce of the country, unleavened bread and parched grain.\u201d But he was \u201clike a bird rushing into a trap, not knowing his life is at stake\u201d (Prov. 7:23)! For \u201cthe passover\u201d is on the 14th, and the day after it is the 15th. Num. 33:3 says plainly, \u201cThey set out from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month. It was on the morrow of the passover.\u2026\u201d Now, it is forbidden to eat the new grain until the sheaf of elevation offering is brought, so the Joshua verse must refer to the old year\u2019s grain. According to Saadia, there is a \u201cpassover of the Lord,\u201d referring to God\u2019s \u201cpassing over\u201d the Israelites\u2019 houses, on the night of the 15th, making \u201cthe day after the passover\u201d referred to in the Joshua verse the 16th. But \u201cthe day after the passover\u201d in the Numbers verse would refer to the day after the passover of Israel, the passover offering (which is how NJPS translates it)\u2014the 15th. But there is nothing to this explanation. The day after God\u2019s \u201cpassing over\u201d the houses of the Israelites was not the 16th, but the morning of the 15th. You can see from Num. 11:32, \u201cThe people set to gathering quail all that day and night and all the day after,\u201d that \u201cthe day after\u201d does not mean the next calendar day\u2014it means the day following the previous night. Saadia also said that the \u201cunleavened bread and parched grain\u201d that the Israelites ate \u201con the day after the passover offering\u201d in Josh. 5:11 actually came from the old grain, not the new, and this is in fact quite plausible. The Torah does say that the count of the seven weeks (beginning after the elevation of the first sheaf) is to begin \u201cwhen the sickle is first put to the standing grain\u201d (Deut. 16:9). If the sheaf was elevated on the day of the 15th, when exactly did they have time to harvest grain, mill it, and bake unleavened bread? Anyway, the barley harvest only begins after the sheaf is elevated. There is another hint that Josh. 5:11 refers to the previous year\u2019s grain in the Hebrew translated \u201cthe produce of the country,\u201d for produce is avur, suggesting that it refers to avar, the \u201cpast\u201d year\u2019s produce. But the real subject of that verse is not the eating of the grain, but the fact that the manna ceased (see Josh. 5:12).
\nSaadia said further: If \u201cthe day after the sabbath\u201d refers literally to the Sabbath day, from which Sabbath should we start to count? Jeshua replied: There are 18 days on which offerings are made, aside from Sabbaths\u2014the festivals. Since there is an offering on this \u201cday after the sabbath,\u201d it must fall on one of the days of the spring festival. He forgot to mention the offerings made on the New Moon, which is not a festival day. So Saadia\u2019s objection stands. One might argue that Num. 28:24, which says of the sacrifices to be made during Passover \u201cYou shall offer the like daily for seven days,\u201d might have been expected to say \u201cbesides the sheaf of elevation offering.\u201d But this is no argument against us. When it comes to the commandments, we rely on tradition. Notice that Num. 28:27, describing the offerings to be made on the Feast of Weeks, does not say, \u201cbesides the \u2018two yearling lambs\u2019 \u201d mentioned later in our chapter, in v. 19!
\nA believer can simply say that Moses knew by prophecy that \u201cthe day after the festival\u201d when the Israelites first entered the land would be the day after the Sabbath. After all, he knew that the showbread would first be set out on the Sabbath. But that would apply only to the first year. Moreover, \u201cYou shall count off seven weeks\u201d (Deut. 16:9) specifically uses the word \u201cweek,\u201d not \u201csabbath,\u201d and this word does not imply a calendar week beginning on Sunday, but simply a period of seven days: \u201cIf she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation\u201d (12:5).
\nAt this point I would like to allude to another mystery involved in the festivals. All of the festivals are scheduled on a particular day of the calendar month except for the Feast of Weeks. Instead, it is commanded to be celebrated on a day arrived at by counting\u2014and that is the commandment. The tradition of the Sages is that the giving of the Torah took place on the Feast of Weeks, which is why Moses told Pharaoh, \u201cWe will all go, young and old: we will go with our sons and daughters, our flocks and herds; for we must observe the LORD\u2019S festival\u201d (Exod. 10:9).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
On the day after the sabbath. The Hebrew literally says \u201cfrom\u201d the day after the sabbath, but the translations have understood the sense correctly. As has been observed, with this word \u201cmorrow\u201d (see OJPS) Hebrew always says \u201cfrom,\u201d never \u201con.\u201d (See, e.g., v. 16; 7:16; 19:6; Exod. 9:6 and Exod. 18:13; and so on.) With regard to the meaning of \u201csabbath\u201d here, see Rashi\u2019s comment. And indeed he offers the most significant argument given in the Talmud. The text is clearly discussing a particular day in the year, not a particular day of the week (even of the first week after our arrival in the land). If it were not so, the Feast of Weeks would not have a date on the calendar! Moreover, according to the day of the week system, we would only know when to begin counting in the year \u201cwhen you enter the land\u201d (v. 10), and not in subsequent years. We would have to start counting \u201cwhen the sickle is first put to the standing grain,\u201d that is, at our own discretion, which is nonsensical. But if \u201cthe day after the sabbath\u201d is understood as the day after the day of rest prescribed in v. 7, then everything makes sense. Note that in vv. 15 and 16 \u201csabbath\u201d cannot refer either to the seventh day or to a festival day, but means (and is translated, by Onkelos and the English translators alike) \u201cweek.\u201d In v. 15, therefore, exactly the same Hebrew word is used twice, with a different meaning each time. The commentators take this as a stylistic device, as in Judg. 10:4. 2 Kings 11:9 makes clear that \u201csabbath\u201d can mean week, and in any case Deut. 16:9 explicitly uses the word \u201cweek\u201d in our same context. Since there is a single Sabbath each week, and since it is the day toward which the days of the week are counted, \u201ca sabbath\u201d came to mean \u201ca week.\u201d This usage is quite common in rabbinic Hebrew, e.g., M. Ket. 1:1, \u201cIn the towns, the courts meet twice every \u2018sabbath\u2019 \u201d (that is, on Mondays and Thursdays).
\nIt is possible that \u201csabbath\u201d means \u201cweek\u201d even in our phrase, for since the counting begins on the first day of the first seven-day period of counting, it is \u201cthe day after\u201d the previous week ended. V. 6 makes clear exactly which date on the calendar (the 15th) is the day after which the count begins (for \u201cthe fourteenth day of the month\u201d in v. 5 refers to the end of that day, \u201cat twilight\u201d). A \u201ccomplete\u201d sabbath (see v. 15) simply means a week\u2014a Sabbath day along with six weekdays, for a total of seven.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall elevate the sheaf before the LORD. As one would in presenting a gift to a king (Bekhor Shor). It is not the sheaf itself that is elevated (for elevation pertains to things that are ready to be offered), but the choice flour that is made from the sheaf (Gersonides). On the day after the sabbath. Since we are told to eat unleavened bread \u201cfor seven days\u201d (v. 6) from the old grain and for \u201csix days\u201d (Deut. 16:8) from the new, this \u201csabbath\u201d can only be the first day of the festival, before it is permissible to eat of the new grain (Bekhor Shor). In Part 3 of Judah Halevi\u2019s Kuzari, the philosopher gives the king a different explanation for the use of this phrase, and a correct one\u2014but we do not need it here (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:12\u201313<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the elevation of the sheaf accompanied by a single \u201clamb of the first year\u201d (v. 12), when the \u201coffering of new grain\u201d on the Feast of Weeks (Num. 28:26\u201327) includes seven lambs?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall offer as a burnt offering to the LORD a lamb of the first year. This offering accompanies the bringing of the first omer of the harvest; it is not one of the lambs mentioned in Num. 28:19.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A lamb of the first year. The deniers claim that \u201ca lamb of its year\u201d (as the Hebrew more literally says) is not the same as \u201ca lamb of a year\u201d (as the phrase sometimes appears). A lamb \u201cof its year\u201d would have to be less than one full year old, and \u201ca lamb of a year\u201d more than one year old. Clearly they did not read Numbers 7, where in one verse the lamb to be sacrificed is called \u201cof its year\u201d (Num. 7:15) and in another \u201cof a year\u201d (Num. 7:87).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The meal offering with it. The meal offering that goes with the libation which accompanies every sacrifice. Two-tenths of a measure of choice flour. Double the usual amount. The libation with it shall be of wine, a quarter of a hin. Though the meal offering was double the usual amount, the libation was not.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Two-tenths of a measure of choice flour. Since the libation was the standard amount for a lamb, clearly one of these tenths of a measure is simply the meal offering made from the first sheaf (Bekhor Shor). The idea that one of these tenths is from the sheaf itself can be dismissed. \u201cChoice\u201d flour by definition always comes from wheat, and this is a sheaf of barley (Hizkuni). The libation. Since this offering will not be mentioned in Numbers 28\u201329, it was necessary to mention the meal offering and libation that go with it. The same holds true for the offerings of v. 18 that accompany the two loaves (Hizkuni). The wine may not be poured on top of the offering, since it might put out the fire. It is poured at the base of the altar where the blood was poured, to get rid of the stink (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:14\u201316<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 How can the elevation offering be described as \u201ca law for all time in all your settlements, throughout the ages\u201d (v. 14), when that rule does not apply outside the land of Israel?
\n\u2666 Why is the Feast of Weeks not introduced with a separate divine utterance, but simply tacked on to \u201cthe sheaf of elevation offering\u201d (v. 15)?
\n\u2666 Why is it not referred to as a \u201csolemn gathering,\u201d particularly since the Hebrew word implies cessation from work?
\n\u2666 Why, according to Jewish tradition, do we count only 49 days\u2014leaving the 50th uncounted\u2014when v. 16 explicitly says, \u201cyou must count until the day after the seventh week\u2014fifty days\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why are the \u201cweeks\u201d throughout this section not referred to by the normal Hebrew word, but are called instead \u201csabbaths\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why does the text not explain that this holiday celebrates the giving of the Torah?
\n\u2666 Again, why is the phrase \u201ca sabbath of complete rest\u201d not included here? If it simply refers to not working at one\u2019s occupation, all of the appointed times are equal in this respect.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Parched grain. The Hebrew word refers to flour made from tender, fresh ears dried in an oven. Fresh ears. See my comment to 2:14. In all your settlements. The Sages disagreed about this. Some understood the verse to mean that this rule about not using the new grain until after this offering is made applies even outside the land of Israel; others take it to mean that this commandment did not apply until after the land was conquered, distributed, and settled.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall eat no bread. From the new grain. It is clear from Num. 9:11 that one must eat unleavened bread (from the last year\u2019s crop) with bitter herbs on the previous evening.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The day after the sabbath. The day after the first festival day of Passover. They must be complete. One must begin counting on the evening preceding \u201cthe day after the sabbath.\u201d Otherwise the weeks are not \u201ccomplete.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall count off seven weeks. Literally, \u201cseven sabbaths.\u201d Without benefit of tradition (which tells us to count each day as well), it would seem that we should count these week by week, just like the \u201cseven sabbaths\u201d of years that make up a jubilee according to 25:8. Note that the same Hebrew word is used twice in this verse, with two different meanings, once as \u201csabbath\u201d and once as \u201cweek.\u201d You will find an even cleverer example of this in Judg. 10:16, \u201cHe had thirty sons, who rode on thirty burros and owned thirty boroughs in the region of Gilead.\u201d They must be complete. The deniers insist that this proves their point about v. 11\u2014one must begin counting on Sunday, the day after the Saturday Sabbath, in order for the first week to be \u201ccomplete.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall count off seven weeks. More precisely, you shall count them \u201cfor yourselves\u201d (OJPS, \u201cunto you\u201d). As with the \u201ctaking\u201d in v. 40, which also includes this expression (again, see OJPS), everyone must perform this count for himself, out loud, and citing the number of the day, in accordance with rabbinic tradition. Where this expression is used for someone who has a discharge, however (15:13 and 15:28), as with the counting of the jubilee in 25:8 (see my comment there), the expression simply means that one must keep track of the number. Notice that the number of days counted here is the same as the number of years counted toward the jubilee, and for the same reason. In each case, one counts seven \u201cweeks\u201d of seven (whether of days or of years), and after these 49 the 50th one is sanctified. They must be complete. They must be counted precisely, neither less nor more\u2014each week must be \u201cwithout blemish,\u201d as the same Hebrew phrase is translated elsewhere (e.g., 22:21). Too much is as much of a blemish as too little. In any case, one starts to count \u201cat the beginning of the barley harvest\u201d (Ruth 1:22), bringing a meal offering of the fresh grain to the Lord along with a burnt offering, and completes the count at the beginning of the wheat harvest, \u201cas shocks of grain are taken away in their season\u201d (Job 5:26), bringing a meal offering of choice wheat flour to the Lord, along with a burnt offering. That is why these particular offerings are mentioned in this section, though most of the festival offerings are not mentioned until Numbers 28\u201329. The ones that are mentioned accompany the grain offerings, which are the primary offerings in those cases.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The day after the seventh week. The Hebrew phrase is the same as that translated \u201cthe day after the sabbath\u201d in vv. 11 and 15. The English translations (correctly) follow Onkelos here. Fifty days. Rather, \u201cthe fiftieth day.\u201d We traditionally understand the verse to say, \u201cOn the fiftieth day you shall bring an offering.\u201d But in my opinion, these words are also to be read in their more natural order: \u201cYou must count until the day after the seventh week,\u201d the 50th day. An offering of new grain. Literally, \u201ca new meal-offering\u201d (OJPS). But NJPS has the sense. It is the first meal offering brought from the new grain. Should you object that the offering of vv. 9\u201314 has already preceded it, you must realize that that offering is not a standard meal offering of wheat, but is an offering of barley.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
An offering of new grain. Thus permitting the offering of the new crop of grain in the sanctuary. For this is the time when the crop ripens.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You must count until the day after the seventh week\u2014fifty days. Wherever the Torah writes of counting days, \u201cuntil\u201d means \u201cup to and including.\u201d Note how often one \u201ccounts\u201d seven days and only afterward, \u201con the eighth day,\u201d brings a sacrifice.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
An offering of new grain. More precisely, \u201ca new meal-offering\u201d (OJPS). As our Sages have explained, no meal offering is to be brought to the Temple until this one is brought. When v. 14 and v. 21 say \u201cIt is a law for all time throughout the ages in all your settlements,\u201d it is because the rules given in those verses, both of which depend on \u201cthe sheaf of elevation offering,\u201d continue to be operative even now that we are exiled from our land and the ritual of the sheaf is no longer performed. The phrase does not occur in connection with the Day of Remembrance (vv. 23\u201325) or the Feast of Booths (vv. 33\u201336), but it is found in v. 31, in connection with the Day of Atonement. For the rules of self-denial and avoidance of work that characterize that day continue to be operative, and they effect expiation even without the sacrifices prescribed in ch. 16. In our passage, vv. 5\u20138, the \u201cthroughout the ages\u201d phrase does not occur even in connection with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But it does occur in Exod. 12:14 and 12:17, for Exod. 12:8 says that the passover offering must be eaten \u201cwith unleavened bread and with bitter herbs,\u201d and one might think the festival should no longer occur once that became impossible. When v. 3 of our chapter says that work is prohibited on the Sabbath \u201cthroughout your settlements,\u201d it essentially means that work is prohibited \u201cin your settlements\u201d but permitted in the Temple, where the sacrificial offerings must be performed. The prohibition of eating sacrificial fat or blood is also \u201ca law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements\u201d (3:17)\u2014even though these portions can no longer be offered on the altar, they continue to be forbidden as sacrificial. The basic point is that the text does not say \u201cfor all time throughout the ages in all your settlements\u201d about every commandment that continues to apply; it adds this phrase only when the context demands it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You must count until the day after the seventh week\u2014fifty days. A prisoner was told: The king is going to free you in a few days, and 50 days after that he will give you his daughter in marriage. The prisoner thought: If only he would free me! When the king indeed freed him, he thought: Since the first promise was fulfilled, the second will certainly be as well. And so it was. The Israelites too did not believe Moses when he told them that God would free them from Egyptian slavery. But once they were freed, they counted the days eagerly until they would be given the Torah. God commanded that they count those 50 days every year as a reminder of their anticipation of the original event. This I heard from my father and teacher of blessed memory (Bekhor Shor). The 50 days symbolically represent the 50 productive years of life, in between the 10 of childhood and the 10 of old age that complete our allotted span of 70 (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:17\u201318<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why must the new grain be brought specifically \u201cfrom your settlements\u201d (v. 17)?
\n\u2666 Why is each loaf of the elevation offering made of \u201ctwo-tenths of a measure of choice flour,\u201d when the standard meal offering is always made only of one-tenth?
\n\u2666 Why must they be \u201cbaked after leavening,\u201d when \u201cno leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as an offering by fire to the LORD\u201d (2:11)?
\n\u2666 Why is there no mention of scooping out part of the offering, as there is with regular meal offerings?
\n\u2666 Why do vv. 18\u201319 specify exactly what the \u201coffering by fire to the LORD\u201d consists of, when this phrase is left undefined for the other holidays?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
From your settlements. But not from outside the land of Israel. Two loaves of bread as an elevation offering. \u201cElevation\u201d is indeed the correct translation here (not the \u201cwave-loaves\u201d of OJPS). This is the \u201coffering of new grain\u201d of v. 16. It is elevated in the name of the One on high. First fruits to the LORD. The Hebrew word is related to that used for a first-born child. This is the first of all the meal offerings. Even the \u201cmeal offering of jealousy\u201d (Num. 5:15), which is made of barley flour, cannot be brought from new grain until after these first two loaves of wheat bread are presented.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall bring. There is a dagesh in the \u05d0 of this word, something ordinarily impossible, and we have no explanation for it. From your settlements. Again, we are completely dependent on tradition to know from which settlements they are to be brought, and when they are to be prepared. As an elevation offering. They and the two lambs go to the priest, as described in v. 20.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall bring from your settlements. But not from \u201call your settlements,\u201d only from those within the land of Israel, which is \u201cthe land that I am giving you to settle in\u201d (Num. 15:2). According to the Mishnah, this applies to the \u201cfirst sheaf\u201d of v. 10 as well, though that is disputed. But no one disputes that it applies to the two loaves. Baked after leavening. They are to be leavened because they are an offering of thanksgiving to \u201cthe LORD our God, who gives the rain, the early and late rain in season, who keeps for our benefit the weeks appointed for harvest\u201d (Jer. 5:24), and an offering of thanksgiving is brought \u201cwith cakes of leavened bread added\u201d (7:13). Ordinarily \u201cno leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as an offering by fire to the LORD\u201d (2:11), perhaps because \u201cleaven\u201d evokes God\u2019s aspect of justice, since it puts things into a ferment even metaphorically (see, e.g., Ps. 71:4 and 73:21). Nor should offerings acceptable to God be made from foods that have such power to alter nature (as with leaven) or those that are completely sweet (like honey), but rather those that are blended. In just this way, the Sages explain, the world was created: God blended His aspect of mercy with His aspect of justice and then created it. An offering of thanksgiving is also appropriate on the Feast of Weeks because that is the day that commemorates the giving of the Torah, the Day of \u201cSolemn Gathering\u201d (v. 36). A word to the wise is sufficient. This is the basis of the rabbinic comment that, in the end of days, all of the offerings will cease to be made except for thanksgiving offerings, which combine the leavened with the unleavened as in the World to Come.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall bring. There are four words in the Bible where a dagesh is found in an \u05d0: here, Gen. 43:26; Job 33:21, and Ezra 8:18; three of them use the verb \u201cbring\u201d (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
With the bread. With it as an obligatory accompaniment\u2014but not \u201catop\u201d it, as the Hebrew might be literally read to mean. With their meal offerings and libations. With the standard meal offerings and libations prescribed in Numbers 15: \u201cthree-tenths of a measure of choice flour\u201d (Num. 15:9) for a bull, two for a ram (Num. 15:6), and one for a sheep (Num. 15:4). So much for the meal offerings; the libations are half a hin for a bull, a third of a hin for a ram, and a quarter of a hin for a sheep.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Seven yearling lambs without blemish, one bull of the herd, and two rams. Contrast Num. 28:27: \u201cTwo bulls of the herd, one ram, seven yearling lambs.\u201d It is possible that our verse applied solely to the very first year of the procedure, which might have differed from the ritual performed on an ongoing basis. Some say that it could be one bull and two rams or two bulls and one ram, at the priest\u2019s discretion. But we have certainly seen no other commandment where that holds true. I will explain the true answer in my comment to Num. 28:26.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:19\u201323<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What does \u201cwhen you reap the harvest of your land\u201d (v. 22) have to do with the Lord\u2019s appointed times?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall also offer one he-goat. One might think the \u201cseven yearling lambs\u201d of v. 18 and the he-goat of this verse are the same as those listed in Num. 28:27\u201330. But when you get to the bulls and the rams, they are clearly not the same. The two sacrifices are therefore completely different. These sacrifices accompany the two loaves, whereas those in Numbers 28 are the additional festival offerings.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A sacrifice of well-being. If sacrifices of well-being can be slaughtered on the Feast of Weeks, animals can certainly be slaughtered on the other festivals as well\u2014contrary to what the \u201cSadducees\u201d claim.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The priest shall elevate these. The verse teaches us that they must be \u201cwaved\u201d (see OJPS) while still alive. But this applies not to all of the offerings, but only to the two lambs\u2014together with the bread of first fruits. He puts the two loaves atop the two lambs. They shall be holy to the LORD. Since an individual\u2019s peace offerings are of a lesser degree of sanctity, the text must specifically tell us here that those of the community are of the highest degree.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall elevate these\u2014the two lambs\u2014together with the bread of first fruits. The lambs are together with the bread, not vice versa; it is the bread that is most important. If the bread cannot be offered, the lambs are not offered either. But physically the bread is atop the lambs (Gersonides). The Torah did not explain this festival as a day of remembrance of the giving of the Torah, for the Torah and the prophecy that we have in our hands testify to their own truth and require no special day to remember them. There is no doubt that this is when the Torah was given, but it is not mentioned\u2014any more than v. 24 mentions the creation of the world, which took place on that day. The same is true wherever this festival is mentioned in the Torah: Exod. 23:16; Exod. 34:22; Num. 28:26, and Deut. 16:9\u2014it is always about the first fruits, not about the Torah (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When you reap the harvest of your land. The repetition here adds a second prohibition to that of 19:9. Said R. Avdimi b. Joseph: Why does the text teach this in between the festivals, with Passover and Shavuot on one side and Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot on the other? To teach you that everyone who leaves gleanings for the poor is rewarded as if he had built the Temple and offered sacrifices there. You shall leave them. Simply leave them there for them to pick up. You should not help one of them at the expense of others. I the LORD am your God. I can be relied on to give you your reward.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
When you reap the harvest of your land. On the day after the passover offering, after bringing \u201cthe sheaf of elevation offering\u201d (v. 15).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When you reap the harvest of your land. The Feast of Weeks is the festival of the first fruits of the wheat harvest. \u201cSo make sure that you do not forget what I commanded you about the harvest in 19:9!\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When you reap the harvest of your land. Despite what Rashi and Ibn Ezra say about this verse, I think it refers to the harvesting of v. 10, to emphasize that, even though the purpose of that harvest is to bring the first sheaf to the priest, it does not override the following two prohibitions: You shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall leave them for the poor and the stranger. Everything comes to us from God, who commanded that we use it to do good for the poor before any of it comes into our own hands (Gersonides). I the LORD am your God. God of the harvesters and God of the gleaners (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:23<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses. The day of \u201cloud blasts\u201d (v. 24) is introduced this way because it is a separate holiday, as are the day of the Great Fast (introduced in v. 26) and the Feast of Booths (v. 33). But the Feast of Weeks is not introduced by a separate divine utterance, being dependent on the elevation of the first sheaf (introduced by a divine utterance in v. 9).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:24<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 The rabbinic tradition that God sits in judgment \u201cIn the seventh month, on the first day of the month\u201d (v. 24) and offers forgiveness on the 10th day would make sense for a human judge, whose capabilities are limited\u2014but how can it apply to \u201cthe Judge of all the earth\u201d (Gen. 18:25)? Indeed, this whole process of judgment and forgiveness raises many questions.
\n\u2666 Why are the Israelites told to mark the first day of the seventh month by observing \u201ccomplete rest\u201d and \u201ca sacred occasion\u201d (v. 24) and also not to work at their occupations (v. 25), all of which mean the same thing?
\n\u2666 Why does the Torah not explain the purpose of this festival?
\n\u2666 Why do the verses about this festival not include a phrase like \u201con that same day,\u201d as do the others?
\n\u2666 Why is this not \u201ca law for all time, throughout the ages in all your settlements\u201d?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Commemorated with loud blasts. More literally, \u201ca memorial\u201d along with \u201cthe blast of horns\u201d (OJPS). This refers to the zikhronot and shofarot verses of the Rosh Hashanah liturgy. When you mention the ram\u2019s horn, God will remember on your behalf the binding of Isaac, who was replaced as a sacrifice by \u201ca ram, caught in the thicket by its horns\u201d (Gen. 22:13).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Commemorated with loud blasts. The loud blasts will remind God of you: \u201cWhen you are at war in your land against an aggressor who attacks you, you shall sound short blasts on the trumpets, that you may be remembered before the LORD your God and be delivered from your enemies\u201d (Num. 10:9).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The seventh month. Though this is the beginning of the year, the months are counted starting with Nisan, the month when we left Egypt. Agriculturally too, the year begins when barley is in the ear (at Passover), continues with \u201cthe Feast of Weeks, of the first fruits of the wheat harvest\u201d (Exod. 34:22), and concludes with \u201cthe Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in the results of your work from the field\u201d (Exod. 23:16). Nonetheless, all of these festivals are to be held on the specific days prescribed in this chapter. On the first day of every other month we are instructed to \u201csound the trumpets\u201d (Num. 10:10), but on the first day of the seventh month we are commanded to sound the ram\u2019s horn instead, and the same applies to the Day of Atonement (see 25:9).
\nNow I intend to offer you some hints about religious mysteries. Pay close attention! Perhaps you will understand them.
\nThose who have passed down our tradition say that Rosh Hashanah is the Day of Judgment. The \u201cloud blasts\u201d are a reminder that God is King. Now, there are trumpet blasts on the first day of every month (for the New Moon is the most significant day of the month), but the 1st of Nisan is particularly important, since that is the day the Tabernacle was set up. In the future, Ezekiel tells us, certain sacrifices are to be made \u201cOn the first day of the first month\u201d (Ezek. 45:18), and \u201cYou shall do the same on the seventh day of the month\u201d (Ezek. 45:20). For each phase of the moon is significant. The 15th of Nisan is therefore paired to the 1st, and its seventh day is significant as well. On the Alternate Passover, the sun and the moon switch places in the zodiac. Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the seventh month, is therefore the greatest of them all. Even though it is the Day of Judgment, it is forbidden to fast on that day, as can be demonstrated from the actions of Ezra: \u201cOn the first day of the seventh month, Ezra the priest brought the Teaching before the congregation, men and women and all who could listen with understanding \u2026 He further said to them, \u2018Go, eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared, for the day is holy to our Lord. Do not be sad, for your rejoicing in the LORD is the source of your strength\u2019 \u201d (Neh. 8:2, 10). On the Day of Atonement, the moon is in conjunction. The Feast of Booths, on the 15th day of the seventh month, parallels Passover, on the 15th day of the first month, except that it is the eighth day, not the seventh, that is also a festival. From this the mystery of the festival calendar, and for that matter of the Sabbath, should be obvious to you.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall observe complete rest. According to our Sages, this is a positive commandment. Therefore, one who works on the festival day violates both the prohibition of working and the positive commandment to rest, while one who abstains from work fulfills the positive commandment. They further say that this applies to all the festivals, though our chapter does not include it in the sections about the Feast of Unleavened Bread or the Feast of Weeks. There is a passage in the Mekilta which says that \u201cyou shall observe this day [of the Feast of Unleavened Bread]\u201d (Exod. 12:17) means that one should abstain not only from the 39 categories by which Jewish law technically defines work, but from anything toilsome. But the argument there is not clear to me. For rest from what is \u201ctoilsome\u201d is an entirely rabbinic distinction, not a biblical one. So why would they say the commandment \u201cderives\u201d from there? They should rather have applied their exegesis to our phrase \u201ccomplete rest,\u201d to make clear that there is indeed a commandment to rest, not merely not to work. For one could toil all day at weighing produce, filling barrels with wine, moving things from place to place, buying and selling\u2014even loading one\u2019s animals, as long as there is a wall around the city and its gates are locked at night. And why stop at festivals? All of these things would be permissible on the Sabbath as well, for none of them fall into the 39 prohibited categories of work. That is why the Torah calls these days ones of \u201ccomplete rest.\u201d They are for rest and relaxation, not for toil. This is a perfectly good explanation. Later, I saw it taught somewhat differently in the Mekilta of R. Simeon bar Yohai; there they explain that the type of work forbidden by the demand for \u201ccomplete rest\u201d is that for violation of which one need not bring a sin offering, even if it is actually commanded at other times but falls into one of the 39 prohibited categories of labor. There is a similar teaching in the Sifra with regard to the Day of Atonement. Perhaps, despite their different approaches, all of these passages really involve the rabbinic rule of avoiding toil. But whether these passages are reading their conclusions out of the biblical texts or into them, the bottom line is as we have explained, that \u201ccomplete rest\u201d means avoiding anything toilsome. This is an excellent and quite sensible thing. Commemorated with loud blasts. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But he should have mentioned the malkhuyot verses too. The text could not possibly have alluded to the zikhronot and shofarot verses without alluding to the malkhuyot verses as well, which the Sages associated with the verse, \u201cYou shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and your sacrifices of well-being. They shall be a reminder of you before your God: I, the LORD, am your God\u201d (Num. 10:10). (But that is merely a literary device; it is the blowing of the ram\u2019s horn that is a Torah commandment.) Num. 10:10, however, refers to all \u201cyour fixed festivals and new moon days\u201d and to \u201cburnt offerings\u201d and \u201csacrifices of well-being,\u201d while our verse applies only to the first day of the seventh month, and mentions a different kind of sacrifice, \u201can offering by fire\u201d (v. 25), besides. So our \u201cloud blasts\u201d are not the trumpet sounds of Num. 10:10. For the Israelites are not commanded to make trumpets until Num. 10:2. At this point, all such blasts are blown on a horn: \u201cThen you shall sound the horn loud\u201d (25:9). Now, our verse does not explain why such blasts are to be blown, why we need to be \u201ccommemorated\u201d before the Lord on this day more than on any other, or even why this is commanded to be a sacred occasion in the first place. But since it is the beginning of the month in which the Day of Atonement falls, it seems plausible that it should be a day of judgment before God. For on this day He judges the peoples (as Job 36:31 has it), \u201centhroned as righteous judge\u201d (Ps. 9:5) at the start of the year. Afterward, during the Ten Days of Repentance, He can forgive the offenses of His own servants. The text thus alludes to what is known among Jews from the words of the prophets and from the tradition passed down to us by our holy ancestors going back all the way to Moses. But the True understanding of these \u201cloud blasts\u201d is that they are what has protected us and our ancestors throughout the ages. \u201cHappy is the people who know the joyful blast\u201d (Ps. 89:16), \u201cfor I hear the blare of horns, alarms of war\u201d (Jer. 4:19)\u2014and \u201cthe LORD is a warrior\u201d (Exod. 15:3). \u201cYou shall observe it as a day of teruah\u201d (Num. 29:1), therefore, means that the day itself is \u201ca loud blast\u201d on our behalf, and it is \u201ca sacred occasion\u201d specifically because it is \u201ccommemorated with loud blasts.\u201d The horn does not need to be mentioned specifically, because yom, the \u201cday,\u201d implies shofar, the \u201cram\u2019s horn.\u201d So this day is a day of justice tempered by mercy, not an \u201calarm of war.\u201d This is why only the teruah, \u201cthe loud blast,\u201d is mentioned here. For we have a tradition that all Jews have seen, going back all the way to Moses, that each teruah is preceded and followed by a tekiah, a single long blast of the shofar. Why is it that the text mentions the teruah but never the tekiah at all, not on Rosh Hashanah and not on the Day of Atonement? In fact, it does; the \u201ccommemoration\u201d is the tekiah, and of course the teruah is explicitly named. But the teruah is completely enclosed by mercy, being surrounded on either side by a tekiah. Thus even those who \u201cknow teruah \u2026 are exalted through Your righteousness, for You are their strength in which they glory\u201d (Ps. 89:16\u201318). It is obvious that this all depends on repentance, but on Rosh Hashanah He focuses completely on operating the world through the aspect of judgment, while on the Day of Atonement He focuses on the aspect of mercy. This is why Hallel is not recited on those days. As the Sages put it, \u201cIs it possible that when the King is sitting upon His throne of judgment, with the books of life and death open before Him, that Israel should be singing His praises?\u201d Rosh Hashanah is a day of judgment tempered with mercy, while the Day of Atonement is a day of mercy tempered with judgment. From what we have explained here, you will understand the meaning of \u201cThus short blasts shall be blown for setting them in motion, while to convoke the congregation you shall blow long blasts, not short ones\u201d (Num. 10:6\u20137). For when they set out, the angel of God set out as well (see Exod. 14:19). \u201cWhen the Ark was to set out, Moses would say: \u2018Advance, O LORD! May Your enemies be scattered, and may Your foes flee before You!\u2019 \u201d (Num. 10:35), in accordance with the verse, \u201cThe face of the LORD is set against evildoers\u201d (Ps. 34:17). But when the congregation was convoked\u2014that is, when they halted\u2014Moses would say, \u201cReturn, O LORD, You who are Israel\u2019s myriads of thousands!\u201d (Num. 10:36), in accordance with the verse, \u201cThen He became King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together\u201d (Deut. 33:5). The 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and the Day of Atonement represent the 10 sefirot. For on the Day of Atonement \u201cThe LORD of Hosts is exalted by judgment\u201d (Isa. 5:16), as is known by tradition. There is a sign of this in the heavens as well, for the ruling constellation of Tishrei is Libra, the balance; and \u201cHonest scales and balances are the LORD\u2019S\u201d (Prov. 16:11).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
In the seventh month, on the first day of the month. This is the beginning of the year, when the nature of the year is astrologically determined: plenty or hunger, health or illness, life or death, a time for war or a time for peace. That is what makes it a Day of Judgment for each and every land, each and every people, each and every individual. But our obligation to observe the Torah provides Israel with an escape from astrological inevitability. As Deut. 4:19\u201320 puts it, \u201cthe sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host \u2026 the LORD your God allotted to other peoples everywhere under heaven; but you the LORD took\u201d (Abarbanel). Loud blasts. Their purpose is to subdue the animal side of our nature; loud sounds are frightening. As Amos 3:6 puts it, \u201cWhen a ram\u2019s horn is sounded in a town, do the people not take alarm?\u201d (Gersonides). As with the sounding of the horn in 25:9\u201310 to \u201cproclaim liberty\u201d and in 1 Kings 1:39 to install Solomon as king, the loud blasts proclaim that we are free and that God is king and has the power to save us from our astrological fate. I might add that these \u201cloud blasts\u201d are indeed shofar blasts, and not cries of praise to God, as the Karaites claim (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:25\u201327<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is Moses not told (in v. 27) to \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people\u201d to tell them about the Day of Atonement, as he is for the other festivals?
\n\u2666 Why must the Day of Atonement be introduced (v. 27) by saying \u201cMark\u201d (NJPS) or \u201cHowbeit\u201d (OJPS)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall bring an offering by fire. This refers to the additional offerings more fully described in Num. 29:2\u20135.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:26<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses, saying. See my comment to v. 10.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:27<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Mark. \u201cHowbeit\u201d (OJPS). Whenever the Torah says \u201chowever\u201d or \u201cexcept,\u201d it is interpreted as adding some sort of limitation. In this case: the Day of Atonement makes expiation for those who have repented, but not for those who haven\u2019t. A sacred occasion. Sanctify it by wearing fresh clothing and by prayer. For the other festivals, sanctify them by wearing fresh clothing, by prayer, and by eating and drinking.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Mark\u2014on the other festival days, though ordinary work is prohibited, work that involves preparation of food for the festival is permitted. But on the Day of Atonement, a day of affliction, all work is prohibited, just as it is on the Sabbath. You shall bring an offering by fire. As prescribed in ch. 16 and in Num. 29:7\u201311.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Since a sacred occasion is intrinsically a joyful day, a day on which one should \u201ceat choice foods and drink sweet drinks\u201d (Neh. 8:10), one must \u201cmark\u201d that this particular sacred occasion is different. You shall practice self-denial. See my comment to 16:29.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Mark. If it is true, as the rabbinic interpretation cited by Rashi says, that this word means that the Day of Atonement makes expiation for those who have repented, then the text is telling us, \u201cThe first day of the seventh month will be a day of judgment for all of you, but the tenth day will be a day of expiation only for some of you\u201d! Following this interpretation, the word really means \u201conly\u201d: \u201cForgive my offense just this once\u201d (Exod. 10:17); \u201cHas the LORD spoken only through Moses?\u201d (Num. 12:2). It carries the same meaning in v. 39: \u201cOnly on the fifteenth day of the seventh month shall you offer the festival offerings of the Lord, seven days\u201d\u2014but not for seven days in a row, for individual festival offerings are not made on the Sabbath. According to the tradition of our Sages, that element of restriction is how this word is to be interpreted wherever it appears in a commandment. In fact, this is also how Jacob\u2019s comment to his sons about Joseph is to be interpreted as well: \u201cHe was only torn by a beast\u201d (Gen. 44:28), but nothing other than this happened to him. So too \u201cFor the people of Israel and Judah have done nothing but evil in My sight since their youth\u201d (Jer. 32:30)\u2014only evil and nothing else. But the straightforward interpretation of this word ach is like achen, as used in the following verse: \u201cMoses was frightened, and thought: Surely the matter is known!\u201d (Exod. 2:14). It asserts the truth of the statement. \u201cSurely you shall die as men do, fall like any prince\u201d (Ps. 82:7). So \u201cMark\u201d here is a promise that what follows is true. That is, on the 1st day of the seventh month is the Day of Judgment, but the 10th day is surely a Day of Atonement. So you must practice self-denial and do no work on it. And note these further examples: \u201cYou are truly my bone and flesh\u201d (Gen. 29:14); \u201cWhen the chariot officers saw Jehoshaphat, they said, \u2018Surely it is the king of Israel\u2019 \u201d (1 Kings 22:32); \u201cGod is truly good to Israel, to those whose heart is pure\u201d (Ps. 73:1). The same is true of \u201cSurely, you must keep My sabbaths\u201d (Exod. 31:13)\u2014\u201clook, I have commanded you to build the Tabernacle, but you must certainly keep My sabbaths forever.\u201d You will find all examples of this word explainable in this fashion, if you examine them carefully.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Mark. The Hebrew word appears eight times in Leviticus, all at the beginning of a verse (Masorah). The tenth day of this seventh month. The world was created on the 1st day of the seventh month; it was on the 10th day that Adam repented of his sin. It was also on the 10th day of the seventh month that Abraham was circumcised, that the second set of tablets given to Moses were finished, and that God hid Moses in a cleft of the rock and proclaimed before him the 13 attributes of Exod. 34:6\u20137 (Abarbanel). You shall practice self-denial. On the day the original set of tablets was given, \u201cthey beheld God, and they ate and drank\u201d (Exod. 24:11), and this eating and drinking led them to worship the Golden Calf. So they are warned that on the Day of Atonement, when the replacement set of tablets was given, they must not eat or drink (Hizkuni). Ibn Ezra says in his comment to 16:29 that self-denial refers to fasting. With all respect for his scholarship, just because fasting is a form of self-denial does not mean that all self-denial is fasting. What it means is one must deny oneself food, drink, sex, or any other pleasure for which one may have an appetite. Weakening the flesh gives more strength to that part of us which is eternal\u2014the mind\u2014to cleave to God (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:28<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Expiation is made on your behalf. On yours alone, not on behalf of any other nation.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Throughout that day. OJPS follows the majority of commentators: \u201cthat same day,\u201d that very day. Similarly \u201cuntil that very day\u201d (v. 14); \u201clike the very sky for purity\u201d (Exod. 24:10). We cannot interpret this verse based on the word\u2019s Hebrew synonym, \u201cin the power of that day\u201d (as the Sages do in Gen. 7:13 and Exod. 12:51). For \u201con the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall observe this your sabbath\u201d (v. 32). As in v. 21, what the expression means here is that the previous night is included in the \u201cday\u201d of the festival. Note that our chapter uses this expression only in connection with the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Weeks, not with the Sabbath or with the other festivals (though it does use it in v. 14, with the prohibition of new grain). The usage in v. 21 is apparently to bring the focus back to the sacredness of the day itself, irrespective of the sheaf and the many sacrifices that intervene in vv. 17\u201320 between the enumeration of the day and the commandment that it must be sacred and one must not work on it. Even if the offerings are not brought, the day remains sacred. Here too, the \u201cself-denial\u201d and the \u201coffering by fire\u201d of v. 27\u2014not to mention the scapegoat and the many offerings listed in ch. 16\u2014must not distract our attention from the fact that we must do no work on the Day of Atonement. For the day itself provides expiation, aside from the expiation provided by the offerings. In v. 14, as well, even if the offering is not made, the commandment to refrain from eating of the new grain before then, and the permission to eat it afterward, is still operative as of \u201cthat very day.\u201d That is why (as I explained in my comment to v. 16) \u201cit is a law for all time throughout the ages in all your settlements\u201d (v. 14).
\nWe find the phrase \u201cthat very day\u201d also used when the text wishes to pinpoint a specific time. In Gen. 7:13 (Noah and his family entering the ark), Exod. 12:41 (the Israelites departing Egypt), and Deut. 32:48 (God telling Moses to ascend Mount Nebo and die) the expression tells us that Noah did not start putting the animals on board a few days in advance, nor had some of the Israelites already begun to leave\u2014the entire event, from beginning to end, took place on that selfsame day. The same is true when Abraham circumcised his entire household (Gen. 17:26\u201327) on a single day to show his alacrity to observe the commandments. In fact, the Hebrew word does etymologically mean \u201cpower\u201d; see the related words in \u201cthe God of Israel who gives might and power to the people\u201d (Ps. 68:36) and \u201cMy own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me\u201d (Deut. 8:17). Yet another meaning derived from this word is \u201cbone,\u201d for the bones give the body its strength. What gives these festivals their power is not the offerings but the things that are highlighted by the use of this phrase. In like manner Onkelos translates our word here as \u201chorn,\u201d a word (like \u201cbone\u201d) that can be used metaphorically for strength. (Some versions of Onkelos spell the Aramaic word with a \u05db rather than a \u05e7, but it means the same; biblical \u05db sometimes becomes rabbinic \u05e7 and vice versa. Within the Bible itself, compare 1 Sam. 17:5 and 1 Sam. 17:38.) So too, all the things described as happening \u201con that very day\u201d\u2014every type of animal on earth being gathered into the ark, or 600,000 men (exclusive of women and children) leaving Egypt at the same time, or Moses teaching the entire Torah to Israel and then going up Mount Nebo to die, or 320 men being circumcised at once\u2014could not have occurred on a single day except by virtue of the power, decreed by God, of the particular days on which they did in fact happen. With regard to v. 14, we learn from Ezek. 2:3 that \u201cuntil\u201d means \u201cup to and including\u201d; our Sages interpret this to mean that the essence of \u201cthat very day\u201d (when applied to the festivals) means that they last precisely from the moment the stars come out until the stars come out on the following night. This is exclusive of the little bit of nonsacred time that we have learned to add to the beginning and the end of each sacred day. The Sages further understand \u201cthat very day\u201d (in the cases of Noah, the exodus, and the death of Moses) to mean \u201cat noon\u201d; this is in Sifrei Deuteronomy, and Rashi cites it in his comment to Deut. 32:48.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A Day of Atonement. Literally, \u201ca day of atonements.\u201d For sacrifices of atonement are performed on all of the festivals to make expiation for any errors in the festival procedure, but on this day transgressions from throughout the year are expiated (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:29\u201336<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does God say that \u201cwhoever does any work throughout\u201d the Day of Atonement, \u201cI will cause that person to perish from among his people\u201d (v. 30), which He does not say about one who works on the other days when work is prohibited?
\n\u2666 What is the difference between this punishment and that prescribed (in v. 29) for one \u201cwho does not practice self-denial\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why does God say \u201cI\u201d will inflict the punishment of v. 30, but not that of v. 29?
\n\u2666 Why do vv. 31\u201332 repeat the prohibition of work and the requirement of self-denial?
\n\u2666 Why is self-denial first assigned to the 10th day of the month and later, in v. 32, to the 9th day?
\n\u2666 Why do the verses about the Feast of Booths not include the phrase \u201con that same day\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:29<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any person who does not practice self-denial. Rather, who \u201cshall not be afflicted\u201d\u2014the verb is passive. This is an indication that if anyone whom we know does not keep this commandment as we do, we must force him to practice self-denial.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will cause that person to perish from among his people. Everywhere else it says, \u201cI will cut that person off\u201d or \u201cthat person will be cut off\u201d from among his people. How am I to know what it means? But this verse teaches that \u201ccut off\u201d (v. 29) means that he perishes.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Whoever does any work throughout that day, I will cause that person to perish from among his people. No one should occupy himself with any task other than seeking atonement for sin. Note that \u201ccausing him to perish\u201d is different from the \u201ccutting off\u201d mentioned in v. 29. But I cannot explain the difference.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do no work whatever. The purpose of the repetition is either so that one who works violates many prohibitions, or to forbid work on the night of the Day of Atonement just as work is forbidden during the day.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do no work whatever. This is repeated to add the proviso that it is a law for all time, throughout the ages.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do no work whatever. Literally, \u201cdo not do any work,\u201d not even the least bit (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:32<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall observe this your sabbath. This Day of Atonement is \u201cyour\u201d sabbath, \u201cbut the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God\u201d (Exod. 20:10).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
From evening to evening. Our days begin at evening because we use the lunar calendar, though a lunar \u201cyear\u201d is not the real year. If we used the solar calendar, it would make sense for the days to begin at sunrise. But we adopted the lunar calendar to show that the sun is not in any way divine, as some people used to think. No one could make this mistake about the moon, which is always waxing and waning (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:34<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The Feast of Booths. It is the booths that are the primary component of this festival. It is not called \u201cthe Feast of the Lulav\u201d (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:36<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It is a solemn gathering. Literally, \u201cit is a detention\u201d\u2014I have detained you with me, like a king who invites his children to feast with him for a certain number of days. When the time comes for them to leave, he says, \u201cChildren, please. Stay with me for one more day. I hate to see you go.\u201d You shall not work at your occupations. OJPS translates more closely to the Hebrew: \u201cservile work.\u201d But what it really means is \u201cwork that will cause you a loss if you do not do it.\u201d But only \u201cit,\u201d the eighth day, is a solemn gathering on which you may not work; it is all right to work on the intermediate days of the festival.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
It is a solemn gathering. Rather, \u201ca cessation,\u201d an abstention from work.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Seven days you shall bring offerings by fire to the LORD. The sacrifices of the Feast of Booths are described as \u201cofferings by fire\u201d just like those of Passover (v. 8). But note that on Passover the same offering is made each day (Num. 28:24), unlike Sukkot (Num. 29:12\u201334). It is a solemn gathering. The English translations follow the view that the Hebrew word refers to \u201cassembly\u201d (see OJPS), following the usage in \u201ca band of rogues\u201d (Jer. 9:1). The point would be that all Israel assembles for the pilgrimage festivals. But they are not correct. With regard to Passover we are told, \u201cAfter eating unleavened bread six days, you shall hold a solemn gathering [sic!] for the LORD your God on the seventh day\u201d (Deut. 16:8), though Deut. 16:7 has already told us that, after eating the passover sacrifice on the first evening of the holiday, \u201cin the morning you may start back on your journey home\u201d! To me it seems more plausible that this noun is connected with the verb from the same root, which means \u201cdetain\u201d (see, e.g., 1 Sam. 21:8). It is not \u201ca solemn gathering,\u201d but a day on which one \u201cholds back\u201d from all worldly occupation: You shall not work at your occupations. At Passover too our word is followed by the same explanation: \u201cYou shall do no work\u201d (Deut. 16:8).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
It is a solemn gathering. Rashi\u2019s comment is taken from Leviticus Rabbah. The True interpretation of the word atzeret, however, is that \u201cin six days the LORD made heaven and earth\u201d (Exod. 20:11), but the seventh day is the Sabbath, and it has no mate. The Assembly of Israel is its mate, for the verse can be read, \u201cin six days the LORD made heaven and what is with the earth\u201d\u2014the Assembly of Israel is the eighth of the seven, the day that found all creation assembled and completed. On the Feast of Unleavened Bread, seven days of holiness are commanded. The first and last days are especially holy, but \u201call of them are holy, and the Lord is in their midst\u201d (Num. 16:3). After the first day, 49 days are counted, seven weeks like the week of creation, making the Feast of Weeks an \u201ceighth day,\u201d sanctified like \u201cthe eighth day\u201d (v. 36) of the Feast of Booths. The 49 days in between are counted like the intermediate days of the Feast of Booths (between the first and the eighth), leading up to the day of the giving of the Torah, the day on which He showed them His great fire, from the midst of which they heard His voice. That is why this word atzeret is the standard rabbinic term for the Feast of Weeks\u2014it is the eighth day of the festival. Indeed, our verse calls the Feast of Weeks by this same term. That is the meaning of the rabbinic saying that \u201cthe eighth day [of the Feast of Booths] is a festival unto itself in every respect.\u201d Nonetheless, it is a day on which any sacrifices that have not been offered on the first day of the festival can be made good, for it is an emanation of the first seven days, though not unified with them. That is why Deut. 16:15 says \u201cYou shall hold a festival for the LORD your God seven days\u201d without mentioning the eighth, for it continues, \u201call your males shall appear before the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 16:16). Now it should all be clear.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
It is a solemn gathering. Rather, a \u201cdetaining.\u201d God lets the Israelites go after Passover because they promise to be back in 50 days, and after Shavuot because they promise again to be back at the end of the summer. But after Sukkot, He wishes them to linger a bit, for He will not trouble them to come back for another six months, until the rains are over (Bekhor Shor). This \u201cstopping\u201d means not only to cease from normal work, but also to \u201cstop\u201d for a bit in some sacred location and serve God, whether through ritual, study, or prayer. Moreover, the rejoicing of Sukkot calls for special attention when it is over. We see in Job 1:5 that Job took just this kind of care after his children had been celebrating: \u201cWhen a round of feast days was over, Job would send word to them to sanctify themselves, and, rising early in the morning, he would make burnt offerings, one for each of them; for Job thought, \u2018Perhaps my children have sinned and blasphemed God in their thoughts.\u2019 This is what Job always used to do\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:37\u201338<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What is the connection between the \u201cofferings by fire\u201d of our chapter (v. 37) and those of Numbers 28\u201329?
\n\u2666 Why does v. 37 sum up by saying \u201cThose are the set times of the LORD,\u201d when the discussion of the \u201cset times\u201d resumes in v. 39?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:37<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Burnt offerings, meal offerings. More literally, \u201ca burnt offering, and a meal offering\u201d (OJPS)\u2014a burnt offering and the meal offering and libation that automatically accompany it. On each day what is proper to it. Once the day has passed without the sacrifices being offered, they cannot be made up. What is \u201cproper\u201d to each day is prescribed in Numbers 28\u201329.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Those are the set times of the LORD. On which you must bring offerings by fire consisting of burnt offerings, meal offerings, sacrifices, and libations. For up to this point only \u201cofferings by fire\u201d have been mentioned. One might have thought that only a burnt offering, or only a meal offering, was meant.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Those are the set times of the LORD that you shall celebrate as sacred occasions, bringing offerings by fire. The \u201cset times\u201d phrase is repeated here to incorporate the demand for \u201cofferings by fire\u201d into the instructions for the Feast of Weeks, where they are not mentioned; similarly, they are included (in v. 38) in the instructions for the Sabbath (Hizkuni). Libations. We would have expected to see burnt offerings, meal offerings, and libations all connected as a group; instead, the burnt offerings and meal offerings are connected, and the libations separated from them. (This is a bit easier to see in OJPS.) In fact the libations are not offerings (as OJPS thinks)\u2014their purpose is to get rid of the smell (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:38<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your gifts on the three festivals, as well as your votive offerings and \u2026 all your freewill offerings, both public and private, throughout the year.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:39\u201340<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why must v. 39 and later v. 41 repeat what has already been said about the Feast of Booths?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:39<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Mark, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. \u201cHowbeit\u201d (OJPS). One might think that the festival offering (for that is what is meant by \u201cobserving the festival\u201d; see my comment) is brought even if the day is a Sabbath, but \u201chowbeit\u201d marks an exception to the rule. There is no need to bring this offering on the Sabbath, since it can be made up during the rest of the seven festival days. When you have gathered in the yield of your land. So this seventh month must occur during the season of gathering. (\u201cIngathering\u201d refers not to harvesting, but to bringing the harvest inside to protect it from the rain.) We thus learn that we are commanded to add a leap month to the year whenever it is necessary. For if we did not do so, sometimes the seventh month would occur in the middle of the summer or in the winter. You shall observe the festival of the LORD. More precisely, \u201cyou shall offer the festival peace offerings.\u201d Seven days. At any time during the seven days. If he fails to bring them on one day, he can bring them on another, at any time during the seven days (except for the Sabbath). But he cannot bring them on each of the seven days, for v. 41 says, \u201cYou shall observe it,\u201d just one of the seven. Nonetheless, any offerings that are missed may be brought on any of the seven days.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Mark, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. Mark\u2014though New Year\u2019s Day and the Day of Atonement are days of remembrance and atonement, Sukkot is for rejoicing and giving thanks to God for filling their homes with all good things during the days of ingathering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Mark. Because the last section discussed the Day of Atonement, on which self-denial is practiced, one must specially \u201cmark\u201d that on this next festival self-denial is forbidden: \u201cYou shall rejoice in your festival \u2026 and you shall have nothing but joy\u201d (Deut. 16:14\u201315). When you have gathered in the yield of your land. Both of the field and of the vineyard. You shall observe the festival. Rather, \u201cyou shall perform the festival offerings.\u201d [You shall have] a complete rest on the first day. The bracketed words are to be understood.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
When you have gathered in the yield of your land. Rashi\u2019s comment is the distillation of a passage in the Sifra saying that leap months must be added in such a way that the Feast of Booths will fall at a time when most of the harvest is gathered in. The Sages had already derived the command to insert a leap month from \u201cObserve the month of Abib and offer a passover sacrifice to the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 16:1), but there of course it is connected with Abib, \u201cthe fresh grain,\u201d while our verse is talking about the fruit of the trees. For our Sages taught that a leap month is inserted for three different reasons: for the ripening of the first ears of grain; for the ripening of the fruit on the trees; or to make sure that the summer solstice does not fall so late that the Feast of Booths would come before the autumnal equinox. Since this festival is to occur at harvest time, the occasional need to add a leap month is obvious. You shall observe the festival of the LORD to last seven days. V. 37 has already summarized \u201cthe set times of the LORD that you shall celebrate as sacred occasions,\u201d bringing offerings to the Lord on all of them. Only, you must surely give thanks to Him for all you have accomplished, and for the ingathering that has come to you. The phrase is repeated in v. 41 so that this command can be juxtaposed to that of v. 42, \u201cYou shall live in booths seven days.\u201d But the Sifra reads \u201cYou shall observe it as a festival\u201d (v. 41) precisely, to say that festival offerings shall be made only on \u201cit\u201d\u2014one day out of the seven, and not the Sabbath. A complete rest on the first day, and a complete rest on the eighth day. See my comment to v. 24. In addition, you must take the branches and boughs of v. 40 as a sign of rejoicing, for (as Deut. 16:15 puts it) the Lord your God has blessed \u201call your crops and all your undertakings, and you shall have nothing but joy\u201d before Him.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Mark. The difference indicated by this word akh is that we rejoice during all the festivals, but on this festival we have akh, \u201cnothing but,\u201d joy (Deut. 16:15). The harvest is all gathered under lock and key; and now that the Day of Atonement has passed, our sins have been forgiven (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:40<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The product of hadar trees. A \u201cgoodly\u201d tree (OJPS), one whose wood tastes as good as its fruit. But the phrase can also be read to mean \u201ca fruit that resides on the tree\u201d from year to year, and that is the citron. Branches of palm trees. The vowel marks spell \u201cbranches,\u201d but the letters simply spell \u201ca branch,\u201d teaching that only one is used. Boughs of leafy trees. Better, of \u201cthick\u201d trees (OJPS), whose branches are braided together like ropes, and this is the myrtle, whose branches are fashioned like braids.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Boughs of leafy trees. The word avot sounds like a feminine plural, but it is really a masculine singular adjective, of the same form as gadol (\u201cbig\u201d) or kadosh (\u201choly\u201d). It means not \u201cleafy\u201d but \u201cbraided.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall take. With regard to Passover, we read, \u201cSpeak to the whole community of Israel and say that on the tenth of this month each of them shall take a lamb to a family, a lamb to a household\u201d (Exod. 12:3). \u201cTaking\u201d there is simply the Biblical Hebrew idiom for \u201cbuying.\u201d Here, however, those who passed down our tradition tell us that \u201ctaking\u201d means holding the four species and moving them in all six directions. They would not contradict the Scriptures, and we are faithful to their words. The product of hadar trees. The tradition of the Sages is that this is the citron, and indeed there is no more \u201cgoodly\u201d tree than this (see OJPS). This of course is the straightforward translation of hadar. The midrash saying that the citron is the fruit ha-dar, \u201cthat resides,\u201d in its tree is simply a play on words to attach this tradition to its verse; see my comment to Exod. 21:8. The Karaites say that booths are to be made from the four species, bringing their proof from the words of Ezra: \u201cGo out to the mountains and bring the leaves of olive trees, pine trees, myrtles, palms and other leafy trees to make booths, as it is written\u201d (Neh. 8:15). How blind they are! Can they not see that the willows are not in that verse at all? (not to mention any fruit)\u2014just five kinds of leaves. Nor is the mention of both \u201cmyrtles\u201d and \u201cleafy trees\u201d any argument against our ancestral tradition, which identifies the \u201cleafy trees\u201d of our verse as the myrtle. For there are two separate species of myrtle, and both are referred to in Neh. 8:15. One who is exiled from the land of Kedar to that of Edom\u2014that is, if he has eyes to see\u2014will understand the mystery that lies behind this commandment.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The product of hadar trees. Rashi\u2019s comments are rabbinic statements that simply connect this phrase rhetorically to the traditions they had received, that this \u201cproduct\u201d is the citron. Ibn Ezra says exactly this. In my opinion, etrog is the Aramaic name for the citron tree, and hadar is the Hebrew name for it. For hadar in general means \u201ccharming\u201d or \u201cpleasing,\u201d and Onkelos uses the Aramaic root from which etrog is derived with these meanings in his translation of (e.g.) Gen. 2:9. The tree and the fruit are called by the same name, as is common: the fig, the walnut, the pomegranate, the olive, and so forth. So both this tree and its fruit are called etrog in Aramaic and hadar in Hebrew. Branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook. The straightforward sense of the verse is that we are to take ourselves one of each kind, including the citron, and this is the halakhah, which follows R. Akiva in this matter. The plurals (which are found in the Hebrew with the branches and the willows, but not with the \u201cboughs\u201d of the English translations) are based on the translation of Onkelos, who translated in this way because \u201cyou\u201d of \u201cyou shall take\u201d is also in the plural\u2014if each of you takes one, collectively you take many. The midrash says that the taking of these species is a ritual for assuring that there will be sufficient rain. But the True interpretation is that the fruit of the hadar tree is the most delightful, desirable, delicious fruit there is\u2014and it is the fruit with which the first humans sinned: \u201cThe woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom\u201d (Gen. 3:6). But the sin was with that fruit by itself; by taking it with the other three species, we in fact make ourselves acceptable to Him. The palm branch is the chief\u2014the middle line, symmetrical and taller than any of the others. \u201cBoughs of leafy trees\u201d (that is, the myrtle) alludes to the three sefirot on a single pole; \u201cYet his bow stayed taut, and his arms were made firm by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob\u201d (Gen. 49:24). The willows, aravot, have to do with \u201cextol Him who rides the clouds\u201d (Ps. 68:5), for in them the aspect of judgment and the aspect of mercy are mingled, arevim, together. From all this you can clearly understand that the citron is separate from the bundle of the three branches, but that its absence nonetheless prevents one from taking the branches as we are commanded to do. For it represents the eighth day \u201cassembly,\u201d which is a festival unto itself, yet completes and fulfills the previous festival. They are therefore one in potential but not in actuality. I have already explained this in my comment to v. 36.
\nNow then. The point of this whole passage is as follows. You shall observe the great festival of the Lord to last for seven days, matching the seven days of creation. You add to them the \u201cassembly\u201d of the eighth day, Shemini Atzeret, as in \u201cFor the leader; with instrumental music on the sheminith\u201d (Ps. 6:1). On those first seven days, you take the fruit of the hadar tree and the lulav as a bundle (which is why the citron takes pride of place). But on the eighth day this is not necessary, for that day is itself \u201chadar.\u201d This is why v. 41 reiterates, \u201cYou shall observe it as a festival of the LORD for seven days in the year,\u201d or more properly, \u201cin a circuit.\u201d For the word \u1e25ag here (\u201cobserve a festival\u201d) alludes to the circular processions of this festival, as in the related words of Job 22:14, \u201cthe circuit of heaven,\u201d and Isa. 44:13, \u201cmarking it out with a compass.\u201d Our Sages have already alluded to this mystery when in Leviticus Rabbah they identified each of the four species as the Holy One: \u201cThe product of hadar trees\u201d is the Holy One, for \u201cGlory and hadar, majesty, are before Him\u201d (Ps. 96:6); \u201cbranches of palm trees\u201d are the Holy One, for \u201cThe righteous blooms like a date-palm\u201d (Ps. 92:13); \u201cboughs of leafy trees\u201d are the Holy One, for these boughs are the myrtle, and Zechariah saw \u201ca man, mounted on a bay horse, standing among the myrtles\u201d (Zech. 1:8); and \u201cwillows, aravot, of the brook\u201d are the Holy One\u2014\u201cextol Him who rides the aravot, the clouds\u201d (Ps. 68:5). According to Sefer ha-Bahir, \u201chadar\u201d is the \u201cmajesty\u201d of the All, as in the Song of Songs, \u201cWho is she that shines like the dawn, beautiful as the moon, radiant as the sun, awesome as bannered hosts?\u201d (Song 6:10). This is the citron, which is separate from the lulav, though the commandment of lulav cannot be fulfilled without it. For it is grouped with each one of them as well as together with all of them. And what is the lulav, the palm branch? It is the spinal cord. Then there is the myrtle, whose branches spread over its trunk, representing man, whose arms defend his head. The Hebrew phrase is anaf etz avot\u2014with anaf, \u201cbough,\u201d on the left; avot, \u201cleafy,\u201d on the right; and etz, \u201ctree,\u201d in the middle. Why is it called \u201ctree\u201d? Because it is the root of the tree. And what of the \u201cwillows of the brook\u201d or, more properly, \u201cthe stream\u201d? They are so called because the place where they are fixed is \u201cthe Stream\u201d: \u201cAll streams flow into the sea\u201d (Eccles. 1:7). What is this Sea? You must say it is the citron. How do we know that each and every one of these seven aspects is called \u201cStream\u201d? \u201cFrom Mattanah to Nahaliel\u201d (Num. 21:19)\u2014do not read it as \u201cNahaliel\u201d but as nahalei el, \u201cGod\u2019s streams.\u201d All of this according to Sefer ha-Bahir, which goes on in the same vein. As you see from the reference to \u201cevery one of these seven\u201d being called Stream, this follows the opinion that there should be three myrtle branches, two willow branches, one palm, and one citron. This is unanimously agreed to by the ge\u2019onim and the early codifiers who followed them.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall take the product of hadar trees etc. All of these are symbols of our innocence and joy, having been acquitted by the court on the Day of Atonement (Bekhor Shor). And it must in fact be \u201cgoodly\u201d (OJPS) and cannot be used if it is not; this applies to the other three species as well (Gersonides). Boughs of leafy trees. With a minimum of three leaves around it on each stalk (Gersonides). Willows of the brook. This is merely their name; they need not actually come from next to a brook (Gersonides). You shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days. Each of the seven days is a festival unto itself, as is proven by the different numbers of offerings on each day (Hizkuni). Each of the four species has its festive aspect; the purpose of taking them is to rejoice before the Lord. In contrast to Neh. 8:15, this verse has nothing to do with making booths (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:41\u201344<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does v. 42 repeat that \u201cYou shall live in booths seven days\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:42<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All citizens in Israel. All citizens, and all those in Israel, including converts.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
All citizens. Even those who own houses must nevertheless live in booths during the festival.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
All citizens in Israel. Rashi understands the precise language of this verse to include converts, but to exclude women; his source, in the Sifra, includes freed slaves as well. The straightforward sense of the text, as understood by tradition, is as follows: Since we are told, \u201cThere shall be one law for you, whether stranger or citizen of the country\u201d (Num. 9:14), and \u201cThere shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger\u201d (Num. 15:15), there is no need to mention this in each and every other place where it applies. The phrase in our verse emphasizes every Jew, great and small alike\u2014it is not enough for one member of the household to live in a booth; they all must do so. But (since the word translated \u201ccitizen\u201d may also be translated \u201cnative\u201d) it may possibly also mean one who is \u201clike a robust native tree\u201d (Ps. 37:35), well rooted in his household\u2014not someone who is on the road or overseas.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
In booths. This is one of 11 verses in the Bible that begin and end with the same Hebrew word (Masorah). All citizens in Israel shall live in booths. There was no need to warn noncitizens to live in booths, as they had nowhere else to live anyway (Hizkuni). Citizens and \u201cstrangers\u201d are bound by the same laws, as the Torah says over and over again. In this particular case, \u201ccitizens\u201d are specified because the most prominent of them might think it is beneath them to dwell in booths rather than in their beautiful palaces (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:43<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I made the Israelite people live in booths. I sheltered them with the cloud of My glorious Presence.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
In order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths. The straightforward sense follows the opinion (in the talmudic discussion on B. Suk. 11b) that \u201cbooths\u201d refers literally to booths. The point is as follows: \u201cAfter the ingathering from your threshing floor and your vat, you shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days\u201d (Deut. 16:13) once your houses are full of all good things\u2014grain, wine, and oil\u2014so that you may remember that \u201cI made the Israelite people live in booths\u201d for 40 years in the wilderness, not being allowed to settle down or possess land. Through doing so, you will be brought to give thanks to the One who gave you land to possess, filling your houses with all good things. It is all explained in Deuteronomy 8. Why am I commanding you to do this? Because \u201cthe LORD your God is bringing you into a good land \u2026 When you have eaten your fill \u2026 beware lest your heart grow haughty and you forget the LORD your God \u2026 and you say to yourselves, \u2018My own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me.\u2019 Remember that it is the LORD your God who gives you the power to get wealth\u201d (Deut. 8:7\u201318). That is why, when the harvest has been gathered in, they were to go out of their houses, full of every good thing, and live in booths\u2014in remembrance that they had no property in the desert, and no houses to live in. For this reason, the Holy One fixed the Feast of Booths at the time of \u201cthe ingathering from threshing floor and vat\u201d\u2014so that their hearts should not grow haughty at the thought of their homes so filled with goods, lest they say, \u201cOur own hands have won this wealth for us.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
That I made the Israelite people live in booths. For they made themselves booths (just as everyone does when they camp) after they passed through the Sea of Reeds, and in the wilderness of Sinai as well, where they spent almost a year. Note that this festival too is a reminder of the exodus from Egypt. If you are wondering why this commandment about dwelling in booths is associated with Tishrei, rather than with Nisan when the exodus took place, the answer is that the Lord\u2019s cloud hovered over their camp by day so that the sun would not smite them. Only in Tishrei did they begin to build booths, to protect themselves from the cold.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I made the Israelite people live in booths. Rashi\u2019s comment seems to me to be the straightforward sense of the verse. He has commanded that all future generations should know the deeds of the great God \u201cWho dealt so wondrously with you\u201d (Joel 2:26), sheltering them under the clouds of His Presence as in a booth. Having already explained that \u201cover the Tabernacle a cloud of the LORD rested by day, and fire would appear in it by night\u201d (Exod. 40:38), our verse needed only to say, \u201cI made the Israelite people live in booths\u201d\u2014\u201cI made My Presence into clouds of glory as shelters to protect them.\u201d We find the same notion in Isa. 4:5\u20136, \u201cThe LORD will create over the whole shrine and meeting place of Mount Zion cloud by day and smoke with a glow of flaming fire by night. Indeed, over all the glory shall hang a canopy, which shall serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain.\u201d At the beginning of the dry season, we are commanded to remember the exodus by making Nisan the first month of the year, and by celebrating the festival of Passover; here, at the beginning of the rainy season, a further observance is commanded, in commemoration of the ongoing miracle that was done for them throughout their 40 years in the wilderness. According to the opinion that the phrase refers to actual booths, they did begin making them at the start of the rainy season because of the cold, as people do when they camp, and that is why our text commands that booths be made at this season. In that case, what the future generations are supposed to know is that they made their way in the wilderness and \u201cfound no settled place\u201d (Ps. 107:4) for 40 years. But God was with them, and they \u201clacked nothing\u201d (Deut. 2:7).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23:44<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
To the Israelites. But (here and throughout the chapter) not to \u201call\u201d the Israelites, for he obviously could not speak to all of them at once. \u201cSpeak to the whole assembly of the Israelites\u201d (19:2) is no refutation, for the \u201cassembly\u201d does not consist of all the Israelites.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
So Moses declared to the Israelites the set times of the LORD. Most of the weekly portion of \u2018Emor consists of commands that were given to Aaron and his sons, but sometimes such commands would be repeated to the Israelites as well. For example, in the section about blemishes that disqualify a priest from serving, God said to Moses, \u201cSpeak to Aaron and say\u201d (21:17), but the conclusion tells us, \u201cThus Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites\u201d (21:24). For Moses wished to inform the court that would rule on these matters, which included lay Israelites. It may also be that the court needed to be informed because a man might be embarrassed and wish to cover up his physical defects (and of course a priest would not want to be disqualified). Our verse, however, makes no distinction between priests and other Israelites. For there is little about sacrifices in this chapter; the essence of the chapter is rest on the Sabbath and on the festivals, and declaring the sacred occasions, which pertain to all of the Israelites alike. In ch. 16, which does focus primarily on priestly rituals, Moses is instructed to tell them to \u201cyour brother Aaron\u201d (16:2). But the Sages explain that Moses would \u201cdeclare to the Israelites the set times of the Lord\u201d by telling them the laws of Passover on Passover, the laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, and the laws of Sukkot on Sukkot. Moreover, he would recite the passages to them in exactly the words that he had heard from God. The translation of Onkelos seems to follow this opinion as well: \u201cMoses declared the order of the set times of the Lord and taught them to the Israelites.\u201d He apparently wished to hint that Moses taught them how the festivals would fall according to the system of leap months which had been transmitted directly to him at Sinai. V. 4 also alludes to this.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:1\u20134<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the commandment about lighting the lamps follow those about the festivals?
\n\u2666 Why are the instructions about the \u201cclear oil of beaten olives\u201d (v. 2) repeated here from their original place in Exod. 27:20?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Command the Israelite people. This is the section commanding the kindling of the lamps. In Exod. 27:20, God merely tells Moses, \u201cYou shall eventually instruct the Israelites\u201d to do so. The reason it was mentioned there was to explain why it was necessary for them to make a lampstand. Clear oil of beaten olives. Three kinds of oil come from the olive, the first being \u201cclear oil.\u201d This is explained on B. Men. 86a and in the Sifra. Regularly. \u201cContinually\u201d (OJPS), not \u201ccontinuously\u201d\u2014every night, just as the \u201cregular burnt offering\u201d (Exod. 29:42) is offered every day.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
To bring you clear oil of beaten olives. Vv. 2\u20133 are repeated from Exod. 27:20\u201321 because the lampstand is opposite the table on which the showbread (to be described in vv. 5\u20139) sits. Both the oil and the bread, then, are part of the ordering and arrangement of the table.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For kindling lamps regularly. Having described the offerings by fire that were brought on all the festivals, it is now appropriate to mention the showbread that is placed on the table, and the lampstand goes with the table.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Command the Israelite people. In my opinion, Rashi\u2019s understanding cannot be correct. The verse he cites is nowhere near the instructions about making the lampstand, which are in Exod. 25:31\u201340. In any case, Exod. 40:25 has already told us that the lamps were lit \u201cas the LORD had commanded Moses.\u201d So both the command to light the lamps and the original lighting of them have already taken place by this time. There are nonetheless two things that made this passage necessary. First, it was the chieftains who voluntarily brought \u201coil for lighting\u201d (Exod. 35:28), but by now that oil had been used up; now the Israelites are told as \u201ca law for all time throughout the ages\u201d (v. 3) that they must provide the same sort of oil from public funds. Second, Exod. 27:21 tells us that the priests are to set up lamps regularly, implying that this would be so whether or not they had the seven-branched lampstand, which might be broken or lost (as indeed happened when they returned from the exile in Babylonia). Now, however, they are explicitly told that Aaron \u201cshall set up the lamps on the pure lampstand before the LORD [to burn] regularly\u201d (v. 4). The lamps may not be lit unless they are set up on the lampstand.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Outside the curtain of the Pact. The curtain in front of the Ark, which is called \u201cthe Pact\u201d or \u201cthe testimony\u201d (OJPS). But our Sages interpret \u201cthe testimony\u201d to refer to the westernmost lamp, which is a testimony to all the world that the Shekhinah rests upon Israel. For the priest would put the same amount of oil in that lamp as in all the others, but he would find it still burning when it was time to light all the others on the next evening. [To burn] from evening to morning. \u201cTo burn\u201d is not in the Hebrew (see OJPS); but NJPS understands correctly. Aaron does not \u201corder\u201d them all night long. In order to \u201cset them up\u201d to burn from evening to morning, however, he must set them up with a large enough measure of oil to burn all night. The Sages discovered that this would require half a log for each lamp. That would be enough even for the long winter nights of Tevet, and this amount was fixed for every day of the year.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Outside the curtain of the Pact. And (therefore) closer to the curtain than to the entrance of the Tent (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The pure lampstand. Made of pure gold. Another reading: The lamps must be set purely on the lampstand. Before the lamps are set up, the lampstand must be cleaned of the ashes that remain from the previous night.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The pure lampstand. \u201cThe\u201d one made by Bezalel of pure gold, and no other. When, in a case of necessity, a lampstand was made out of iron, that was done with prophetic authorization.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall set up the lamps on the pure lampstand before the LORD [to burn] regularly. The straightforward explanation is as given in my comment to v. 2. Our Sages explain the verse as follows: he shall set up the lamps directly \u201con the pure lampstand,\u201d not setting them on chips of wood or pebbles; he must do so \u201cbefore the Lord,\u201d not setting them up outside and then bringing them in; and they are \u201cto burn regularly,\u201d no matter whether it is the Sabbath or whether he is ritually unclean.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall set up the lamps. \u201cSetting up\u201d the lamps may perhaps mean cleaning and preparing them (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:5\u201310<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are the instructions about the showbread (vv. 5\u20139) repeated from their original place in Exod. 25:30?
\n\u2666 \u201cThere came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelite\u201d (v. 10)\u2014but from where did he \u201ccome out\u201d?
\n\u2666 What is this story doing at this point in the text to begin with?
\n\u2666 What is the meaning of \u201camong the Israelites\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:5<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall take choice flour. God was not telling Moses that he himself must take the flour, merely that he must have it done. And bake of it. The same applies. Note that the shift of the accent on this verb to the last syllable is extremely unusual in a \u05dc\u05f4\u05d4 root.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The pure table. Made of pure gold. Another reading: the loaves must rest \u201cpurely\u201d on the table; the framework holding them up must not lift the bottom layer of the bread up above the tabletop.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The pure table. There were other tables there as well, but only this one was overlaid with gold and had a gold molding around it. Two rows, six to a row. Matching the number of the tribes. The mystery here is like that of the ephod and the breastpiece. Perhaps there is a link between the two rows and the \u201ctwo-tenths of a measure\u201d of v. 5.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
With each row you shall place pure frankincense. A dish for each row, each dish holding as much as the priest can scoop between his middle three fingers and his palm. A token offering. More literally, \u201ca memorial-part\u201d (OJPS). For none of the bread goes to the One on high. It is the frankincense that is turned into smoke, every Sabbath when the bread is removed. By this token there is some \u201cremembrance,\u201d some notice of the bread on high. It is like the scoop of frankincense that accompanies each meal offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Pure frankincense, which is to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering by fire to the LORD. It was the frankincense that was the \u201coffering by fire\u201d; the bread was for the priest. It would seem that this passage follows the chapter about the festivals because Israel was obligated to offer this bread (and the oil for the lampstand) regularly, just as they were the offerings for each festival.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:8<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall arrange them before the LORD regularly every sabbath day. It took a great number of priests to remove the old loaves and arrange the new loaves simultaneously so that the table was never left empty of showbread for a moment (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They. The Hebrew literally says \u201cit\u201d (OJPS), referring to the loaves as if they were a meal offering. For any offering made from grain may be so called. Who shall eat them. Again, the Hebrew literally says who shall eat \u201cit\u201d (OJPS), using the masculine suffix appropriate for a loaf rather than the feminine suffix appropriate for a meal offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They shall belong to Aaron and his sons. Rather, \u201cto Aaron and the members of his household.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
They shall belong to Aaron and his sons. Despite what Rashi says, \u201cit\u201d (see correctly OJPS) may possibly refer to each of the two rows. But according to the True interpretation, \u201cit\u201d refers to the \u201ceverlasting covenant\u201d (v. 8; again, see OJPS). As God said of Levi in Mal. 2:5, \u201cI had with him a covenant of life and well-being.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
There came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelite. From where did he come out? R. Levi says: He \u201ccame\u201d out of the place allocated to him in the World to Come for all time. R. Berechiah says: He \u201ccame out\u201d of the preceding passage, making fun of it as follows: \u201cWhat can it mean by saying \u2018He shall arrange them before the LORD regularly every sabbath day\u2019 (v. 8)? Does a king eat fresh, warm bread every day, or does he prefer cold bread that is nine days old?!\u201d Another rabbinic tradition says: He came out of Moses\u2019 court having lost his case. He had gone to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan, but they said to him, \u201cWhat business do you have here?\u201d He replied, \u201cMy mother is from the tribe of Dan.\u201d They retorted, \u201cIt says \u2018The Israelites shall camp each with his standard, under the banners of their father\u2019s house\u2019 [Num. 2:2].\u201d He took the case to Moses, lost, came forth, and blasphemed against God. But coming out \u201camong the Israelites\u201d means that he converted to Judaism. And whose father was Egyptian. This was the Egyptian whom Moses had killed. A fight broke out in the camp. Not \u201cin\u201d the camp, but about the camp, as previously noted. Between that half-Israelite and a certain Israelite. The one who had stopped him from pitching his tent.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
There came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelite. He demonstratively \u201ccame out\u201d of his tent, as in \u201cNow Dathan and Abiram had come out and they stood at the entrance of their tents\u201d (Num. 16:27). Whose father was Egyptian. And had converted to Judaism. But we do not know why the story is told in this context. Perhaps the man blasphemed (see v. 11) with regard to the bread, the oil, and the offerings.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
There came out among the Israelites one whose mother was Israelite. He \u201ccame out\u201d into the midst of the Israelites, as when Mordecai \u201cwent out into the midst of the city\u201d (Esther 4:1). Just as Mordecai came out of his home (or wherever he was living) into the city, so too this fellow came out of his tent or his place into the midst of the people and got into a fight. The reason this story is placed here is, as a midrash has explained, because this man \u201ccame out\u201d of the previous paragraph: he spoke sinfully about the showbread being stale, the Israelite called him on it, they fought, he lost his temper, and he blasphemed\u2014at the price of his life. In the camp. Since the fight took place in the middle of the camp, many people heard it, and they seized him and brought him to the tent of Moses. Between that half-Israelite and a certain Israelite. The Hebrew does not call him a \u201chalf-Israelite,\u201d but \u201cthe son of the Israelite woman\u201d (see OJPS). The whole point of the expression is to teach that if a gentile man has sex with a Jewish woman, the child is not Jewish. Even though we have the exact opposite ruling in the Talmud\u2014to the extent that it does not even matter if the Jewish woman was single or married\u2014the Sages did say that this contaminates the child. For it is blemished with regard to the priesthood and, even more importantly, does not have Jewish ancestry with regard to the tribes or to the division of the land of Israel among them. For the allotment of the land was to be made \u201caccording to the listings of the tribes of their fathers\u201d (Num. 26:55). The story in the Sifra that the man had converted to Judaism (enabling him to \u201ccome out among the Israelites\u201d) is not because he needed to convert; like all the other Israelites, he had entered the covenant through circumcision, ritual immersion, and being dashed with sacrificial blood at the time of the giving of the Torah. What they meant was that he took after his mother and identified with Israel. That is the meaning of his \u201ccoming out among the Israelites.\u201d He was with them. He did not wish to follow after his father and be an Egyptian. The French commentators say that, because he was born before the giving of the Torah, he should have been an Egyptian like his father, since for nations that do not follow Torah law, the rules of patrilineal descent apply. So he had not been circumcised. But when he grew up, he voluntarily converted and was circumcised. My opinion, however, is otherwise. From the moment Abraham entered the covenant, he was considered a Jew and \u201cnot reckoned among the nations\u201d (Num. 23:9). There is even a comment in the Talmud suggesting that Esau (who of course lived long before the Torah was given) was an apostate Jew rather than a non-Jew. It is obvious on the face of it that, if after the giving of the Torah (when a non-Jewish man is forbidden to a daughter of Abraham) her womb is nonetheless the equivalent of a ritual bath, purifying the child to be a Jew as she is, certainly before the giving of the Torah, the child should be a Jew, obligating him to be circumcised like an offspring of Abraham and to be one of the Israelites.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
There came out among the Israelites. \u201cComing out\u201d or \u201cgoing forth\u201d is associated with fighting in Prov. 25:8, \u201cGo not forth hastily into a quarrel.\u201d The straightforward sense here, however, is that he followed his father\u2019s ancestry while the Israelites were enslaved, but \u201ccame out\u201d among them after the Torah was given (Hizkuni). He \u201ccame forth\u201d from a state of honoring God\u2019s name and went into one of profaning it, \u201cgoing out\u201d of Israelite norms. But perhaps it simply means that he went forth from his time as an adolescent and came among the adults and their concerns (Abarbanel). One whose mother was Israelite and whose father was Egyptian. It was his Egyptian ancestry that caused him to blaspheme, for the Egyptians are scornful of heaven. Remember that in Exod. 5:2 Pharaoh said, \u201cWho is the LORD that I should heed Him?\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Moses killed his father (see Exod. 2:12) after determining by prophecy that he would have no future descendants that would convert to Judaism; the man in our story had already been conceived by then (Hizkuni). His mother had tried to keep his paternity a secret, but the rumor had spread nonetheless (Abarbanel). A fight broke out in the camp. Because the son of the Egyptian claimed to be a Danite. The instructions for camping by tribe in Numbers 2 were not given to Moses until the second year (see Num. 1:1). But the Israelites were already camped by tribe, following the instructions given by Jacob for his funeral, as Rashi explains in his comment to Gen. 50:13 (Hizkuni). The Torah does not tell us why they were fighting. There could obviously have been many reasons for it (Gersonides). The fact that they fought in the camp shows how worthless they both were. If they had taken it outside, no one would have interfered\u2014let the best man win (Abarbanel). Between that half-Israelite and a certain Israelite. The \u201chalf-Israelite\u201d is mentioned first because he started the quarrel (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:11<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is his mother\u2019s name given only in v. 11, and not when he is originally mentioned?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy. NJPS, following Onkelos, translates correctly here. The \u201cName\u201d he pronounced was the Tetragrammaton, which he had heard at Sinai. Now his mother\u2019s name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. The text specifically singles her out as a way of praising Israel\u2014she was the only one of them all who had gone astray. She was called \u201cShelomith\u201d because she was an incessant talker, greeting one and all with \u201cShalom,\u201d and \u201cdaughter of Dibri\u201d likewise, because she was a dabranit, a woman who spoke with everyone\u2014which resulted in her going wrong. She is further identified as being of the tribe of Dan, showing that the evildoer brings disrepute not only on himself, but on his father and his tribe. Compare the way Bezalel\u2019s assistant is identified: \u201cOholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan\u201d (Exod. 31:6), in this case bringing praise upon himself, his father, and his tribe.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Pronounced the Name in blasphemy. More precisely, he \u201cpronounced the Name\u201d and then \u201cblessed\u201d it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Pronounced the Name. Some (like NJPS) understand the Hebrew verb to mean that he pronounced the Name explicitly, following the usage of this verb in Isa. 62:2, \u201cAnd you shall be called by a new name which the LORD Himself shall pronounce,\u201d and Num. 1:17, \u201cSo Moses and Aaron took those men, who were designated by name.\u201d Others (like OJPS \u201cblasphemed\u201d) understand it as a verb of cursing, as in the words of Balaam, \u201cHow can I damn whom God has not damned, how doom when the LORD has not doomed?\u201d (Num. 23:8). In my opinion the former translation is more plausible.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy. As a result of the fight. He told the other man, \u201cDamn So-and-So who created you and gives you life!\u201d (Bekhor Shor). He blasphemed by using the Name that (tradition has it) Moses used to kill his father (Hizkuni). Of the tribe of Dan. This was what made him so quarrelsome. For Gen. 49:16 tells us, \u201cDan shall judge his people\u201d\u2014the Danites are always in court. It is like the character in the Talmud who was always suing people. Everyone said, \u201cHe must be from the tribe of Dan!\u201d (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:12\u201316<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Since the Israelites have already been told \u201cYou shall not revile God\u201d (Exod. 22:27), why was the man \u201cplaced in custody\u201d (v. 12) and not simply put to death?
\n\u2666 Since the Lord is God, what is the difference between cursing God (v. 15) and blaspheming the Lord (v. 16)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He was placed in custody. He was placed in custody by himself, and not together with the man who was caught gathering wood on the Sabbath day (Num. 15:32\u201336), though both incidents occurred around the same time. In that case, they knew that the man was to be put to death, but \u201cit was not clear what should be done to him\u201d (Num. 15:34)\u2014they did not know which of the four methods of execution was to be applied. Here, they did not even know whether or not he was to be put to death, so they put him in custody until the decision of the LORD should be made clear to them.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In custody. More precisely, \u201cin the guardhouse,\u201d a specific place in the camp that was used for this purpose.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Until the decision of the LORD should be made clear to them. Since \u201cHe who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death\u201d (Exod. 21:17), it seemed logical that this man should be too. But they did not want to put anyone to death strictly on the basis of a logical deduction (Bekhor Shor). It seems to me that their doubt was whether he was an Israelite, and obligated not to blaspheme the Name, or an Egyptian, and under no such obligation. It was at this point that his mother Shelomith, the peacemaker, testified that his father was an Egyptian\u2014to save his life (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All who were within hearing. These were the witnesses. But adding the word \u201call\u201d who were within hearing implies that the judges too (who heard from the witnesses) must participate. Lay their hands upon his head. They would say to him, \u201cYour blood is upon your own head. We are not to be punished for your death, for you have brought it on yourself.\u201d Let the whole community stone him. Since this is physically impossible, we understand that it must mean he is to be stoned in the presence of the whole community. So we learn that one is legally responsible for the actions of one\u2019s representative.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head. Since it is on the basis of their testimony that he is to be stoned. The whole community. Not \u201cthe entire community\u201d but the \u201cassembly,\u201d the greatest on earth\u2014that is, the notables of Israel, who represented them all.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head, and let the whole community stone him. Those who heard the blasphemy laid hands upon him (as one does on a sacrifice) to seek expiation, to defend God\u2019s honor, and to throw him from a height as Jewish law prescribes. When the whole community sees that they have done this\u2014knowing that if he was not indeed guilty of blasphemy the witnesses would be making themselves accomplices to a murder\u2014they can stone him knowing that he is indeed guilty (Bekhor Shor). Since the witnesses have to repeat his sin of blasphemy in order to convict him, they lay their hands on him to convey their sin back to him, since he was responsible for causing them to say those words (Hizkuni). God told Moses, \u201cIt makes no difference whether he is an Israelite or an Egyptian. Once he is known to be a blasphemer, he must be stoned to death\u201d (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:15\u201316<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Anyone who blasphemes his God by invoking any of the words for God, without pronouncing the Ineffable Name, shall bear his guilt. But if he also pronounces the Ineffable Name (may His name be blessed!) and then curses it, he shall be put to death. That is the straightforward sense of these verses.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt. He is \u201ccut off\u201d by heaven if he was not specifically warned before he uttered the blasphemy, since in that case a human court has no jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Anyone who blasphemes his God. Some say this refers specifically to one who blasphemes in secret. But it is more correct to observe that the word elohim is a common noun, and need not refer to God, but to \u201cgodly ones\u201d (as we indeed find in the case of angels who are referred to by this word, as are human judges). After all, who can know what is in the heart of someone who blasphemes in secret? So one who curses \u201celohim\u201d merely \u201cbears his guilt.\u201d But the Tetragrammaton is a proper noun\u2014the Ineffable Name\u2014and can only refer to the Lord. So if he actually pronounces the Name when he blasphemes, he is to be put to death for doing so (see v. 16), as the Egyptian\u2019s son was. Out of respect for God, the text itself did not write the Name explicitly in v. 11\u2014but that is what he did.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he also pronounces the name LORD. He is not culpable unless he specifically pronounces the Tetragrammaton. The rule does not apply to one who blasphemes using one of the other words for God. Note that in our verse the verb does mean \u201cblaspheme\u201d (see OJPS), not merely \u201cpronounce,\u201d as it does in v. 11. \u201cHow can I damn whom God has not damned\u201d (Num. 23:8) is another example with that meaning.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Stranger or citizen. It makes no difference which\u2014if he has thus pronounced the Name, he shall be put to death.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Stranger or citizen. Since the blasphemer was a \u201cstranger\u201d (that is, a convert), the stranger is mentioned first in this connection (Hizkuni). The blasphemer was not being punished because he was a stranger; punishment would also have applied to a citizen (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:17\u201321<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are the rules about killing a human being or a beast (vv. 17\u201318) mentioned here, since they have already been given?
\n\u2666 Why does v. 21 repeat these rules yet again?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If anyone kills any human being. Exod. 21:12 applies the death penalty specifically to one \u201cwho fatally strikes a man.\u201d How am I to know that the same rule applies to one who kills a woman or a child? From our verse, which mentions \u201cany human being.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death. Apparently this section appears here in the context of the fight described in v. 10. We have learned this principle already, in Exod. 21:12; what is added here is that \u201cYou shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike\u201d (v. 22). This applies not only to the murderer, but also to the victim: \u201cIf anyone kills any human being,\u201d as long as he does so deliberately (and not in military combat).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death. Having made clear that the one who \u201ccame forth\u201d to quarrel was to be put to death, the text takes the opportunity to discuss similar actions for which one is put to death (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:18<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
One who kills a beast. Literally \u201csmites\u201d it (see OJPS), but the sense is \u201ckills\u201d it, as NJPS translates.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Life for life. This phrase applies (mutatis mutandis) both to killing a person (v. 17) and to killing an animal.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Life for life. Even with regard to animals, this is not literally true\u2014he need not buy him an animal like the one he previously had. What he must do is pay him the amount of the damage he did to him. The same is true for \u201cfracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth\u201d (v. 20), according to our Sages.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:19<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
So shall it be done to him. As Samson said, \u201cAs they did to me, so I did to them\u201d (Judg. 15:11). Saadia presented many philosophical proofs that \u201cfracture for fracture\u201d (v. 20) cannot be meant literally. The original person might have caused the fracture unintentionally\u2014how could one deliberately cause exactly the same injury? If the injury occurs in the wrong place, the person might even die. All the more so in the case of \u201ceye for eye.\u201d Suppose the original injury causes the person to lose one-third of his sight. How can he do precisely this to the one who caused the injury? You must therefore accept willy-nilly that the words of tradition are true. The explanation of all the \u201cX for X\u201d phrases is that the person owes a payment to the one he has injured, and would deserve to have (e.g.) his eye put out if he did not discharge his debt. The argument can be raised that the one who caused the injury might be too poor to pay, to which we would respond that a poor person might one day become richer. In any case, the text speaks of a standard occurrence, not a special case. (The same response covers the case where the person who caused the injury was blind in one eye.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The injury he inflicted on another shall be inflicted on him. Our Sages interpreted this rule to say that the same injury is not inflicted on him physically, but financially. The Hebrew does not say \u201cinflicted,\u201d but \u201crendered\u201d (OJPS). It is the word commonly used in commerce to mean \u201csold.\u201d The injured man is treated as if he were to be sold as a slave, and he is paid the difference in his value caused by the injury.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The injury he inflicted on another shall be inflicted on him. \u201cUpon\u201d him as an obligation, which the Hebrew preposition b- can mean: \u201cno other beast than the one upon which I was riding\u201d (Neh. 2:12). This usage is quite common. Or possibly it literally means that the injury is inflicted on his body\u2014but only if he does not pay the debt he has incurred.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it. Literally, one who \u201csmites\u201d a beast. It is v. 18 that refers to one who kills a beast. Our verse refers to one who strikes a beast and injures it. But one who kills a human being shall be put to death. Again, the verb merely says \u201csmites,\u201d and does not specify that the smiting is a mortal blow, as do vv. 17\u201318 (see OJPS); it refers to one who merely injures a person. If this nonetheless leads to his being put to death, it can only refer to one who smites his parents. The technical comparison serves to show that, just as striking an animal only matters if the animal is alive, so too striking one\u2019s parents is not a capital crime unless they are alive. Since cursing one\u2019s parents after death is a capital crime, the text must show that striking them is not. The comparison further indicates that, just as one does not pay for striking a beast unless it actually causes injury, one is not culpable for striking one\u2019s father unless the blow actually injures him.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it. Here the sense is merely \u201csmites\u201d\u2014one who merely injures the beast, even though he does not kill it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
One who kills a beast. Again, the repetition from v. 18 adds the further information that \u201cstranger and citizen\u201d (v. 22) are to be treated alike. This is necessary because the rules of vv. 19\u201320 apply only to \u201chis fellow\u201d Israelite. But with regard to killing, whether of an animal or a man, stranger and citizen are the same. One who kills a human being. In both cases, the Hebrew uses the verb \u201csmite,\u201d which does not always imply killing; here, however, it certainly does, since obviously no one is put to death for striking someone unless the person dies. With regard to the animal, it is in v. 18 that he smites it \u201cmortally\u201d (see OJPS). Our verse only says that he \u201cstrikes\u201d the animal, not necessarily in a vital organ. Nonetheless, if it dies, he must make restitution for it. This is another reason for the repetition.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:22\u201323<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 \u201cYou shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike\u201d (v. 22) is yet another repetition; why?
\n\u2666 Once we are told that \u201cthey took the blasphemer outside the camp and pelted him with stones\u201d (v. 23), why must the text add that \u201cthe Israelites did as the LORD had commanded Moses\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I the LORD am your God. I am the God of all of you. Just as I designate you with My name, so I designate the strangers.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Stranger and citizen alike. I have already discussed (in my comment to Gen. 44:18) the Hebrew idiom \u201clike X, like Y\u201d that is used here. I the LORD am your God. \u201cYour\u201d is plural in Hebrew\u2014I am the God of the citizen and the God of the stranger.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike. The Torah says this over and over again, which is as it should be. For the Torah is a coherent law with one unified purpose (Gersonides). See Job 34:19, \u201cThe noble are not preferred to the wretched; for all of them are the work of His hands\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 24:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The Israelites did as the LORD had commanded Moses. That is, they stoned the blasphemer in accordance with all of the rules about stoning (which are commanded elsewhere): throwing him from a height, stoning him, and impaling the corpse.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The Israelites did as the LORD had commanded Moses. With regard to one who causes an injury, the Israelites began to follow this rule from that day forward.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The Israelites did as the LORD had commanded Moses. Ibn Ezra is not correct; it is Rashi, based on the Sifra, who explains what the verse really means. Ibn Ezra is talking about what the Israelites would do in the future, while the verse describes what they did just then: they \u201cpelted him with stones.\u201d You will find similar confirmation whenever someone fulfills a commandment; he does so, and then it is noted that he did so in accordance with God\u2019s command. E.g., \u201cAnd the Israelites went and did so; just as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did\u201d (Exod. 12:28); \u201cThe Israelites did accordingly; just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so they did\u201d (Num. 1:54); \u201cThis Moses did; just as the LORD had commanded him, so he did\u201d (Num. 17:26). In my opinion, the implication of our verse is that the Israelites stoned the man not because they hated this son of an Egyptian who had fought with an Israelite, but in accordance with God\u2019s command through Moses, to remove this stain from their midst.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They took the blasphemer outside the camp and pelted him with stones. This proves conclusively that he was a Jew, since a non-Jew would have been beheaded for blasphemy (Hizkuni). Evidently this was what Moses had commanded them to do. But he himself did not go out with them. From this we learn that the judges do not follow the convict out to the place of execution (Gersonides). Rather, they \u201cbrought him forth\u201d (see OJPS) from the place where he had been in custody (Abarbanel). The Israelites did as the LORD had commanded Moses. They had discussed it, and they concluded that, as the son of an Egyptian, he did not deserve death. Nonetheless, they did what the Lord commanded even though they thought it was unjust (Abarbanel). They did not stone him because they hated him as a stranger, or because he had brawled with a citizen, but because they had been commanded to do so (Sforno).
\nThere are a total of 124 verses in this parashah, symbolized by the name Uzziel, which has that numerical value (Masorah).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Leviticus 20:12\u201317 Leviticus 20:12 RASHI They have committed incest. The same word is translated as \u201cperversion\u201d in 18:23. But \u201ccorruption\u201d (OJPS) is also at issue, in a very specific sense\u2014they are mixing the seed of the father with that of the son. IBN EZRA They have committed incest. See my comment to 18:23, where the … <\/p>\n