Leviticus 25:1<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are we suddenly told that the following commandments were given \u201con Mount Sinai\u201d (v. 1)? Were not all the commandments given there?<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
On Mount Sinai. What does the sabbatical year have to do with Mount Sinai? Were not all the commandments given there? But just as the overall commandment to let the land rest, as well as the details of the commandment, come to us from Sinai, so it is with all the other commandments. All of them, both in general and in detail, were spoken at Sinai. So teaches the Sifra. But it seems to me that it should be explained this way: We do not find the commandment to let the land rest repeated in Deuteronomy, on the steppes of Moab, as the Israelites are about to enter the land. We therefore understand that all of its aspects, general and detailed, were given to Moses at Sinai. Since that is (nonetheless) explicitly stated here, we learn that every divine utterance that was spoken to Moses was spoken at Sinai, both generally and in detail, and then repeated once again on the steppes of Moab.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
On Mount Sinai. Before the Tent of Meeting was set up.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
On Mount Sinai. The Torah is not written in chronological order. Chronologically, this section precedes the beginning of the book of Leviticus, where God \u201ccalled to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting\u201d (1:1). This passage was spoken on Mount Sinai, after which the covenant was made (see Exod. 24:3\u20138); this is the covenant described in ch. 26. It is recorded at this point in the Torah to unite it with the other commandments of Leviticus on which their continued occupation of the land was conditioned. Just as failure to observe the regulations about sex would result in their being \u201cspewed out\u201d of the land, so too ch. 26 says that failure to observe the sabbatical year would result in their being expelled from it. The rules about the sabbatical year are given here.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai. In my view Rashi\u2019s comment is completely wrong. There are many commandments that, like that of the sabbatical year, are not repeated on the steppes of Moab. So we know that the details of such commandments were given either at Sinai or in the Tent of Meeting. Moreover, from where does Rashi get that the sabbatical year, which was not repeated on the steppes of Moab, can be compared to the divine utterances that were repeated there? And what makes him think that they did not have just their general outlines given at Sinai, and their full details on the steppes? It would have been more logical to say that the commandments that were repeated in Moab were repeated specifically out of the necessity to add the details. In fact, what the Sifra says is quite clear: The general commandment to let the land rest every seven years was given at Sinai. \u201cSix years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow\u201d (Exod. 23:10\u201311). Here, the text adds that even the details were given at Sinai, though they are written in the Torah only here. When the very end of Leviticus states, \u201cThese are the commandments that the LORD gave Moses for the Israelite people on Mount Sinai\u201d (27:34), that is the verse which compares all the other commandments to the sabbatical year, saying that they were given, in general and in detail, at Sinai. That is exactly how the Sifra explains it. The point of the repetition on the steppes of Moab was that Moses was commanded there to explain the Torah to the next generation. That appears to me to be what the Sifra means, and it is an absolutely top-notch explanation. Ibn Ezra thinks these chapters are part of the covenant made in Exodus 24, but I think they are written in their proper place. The Lord \u201cspoke to Moses on Mount Sinai\u201d when he went up there to get the second set of tablets. The explanation is as follows: At the beginning of the first 40 days, those in which he was to get the original set of tablets, \u201cMoses then wrote down all the commands of the LORD\u201d (Exod. 24:4) and all \u201cthe rules\u201d (Exod. 21:1) that were spoken there, and \u201cdashed the blood on the people\u201d (Exod. 24:8). When they sinned with the calf, that set of tablets was broken, and as far as the Holy One was concerned, it was as if that covenant was canceled. Note that when the Holy One reconciled with Moses and gave him the second set of tablets, He said, \u201cI hereby make a covenant\u201d (Exod. 34:10). At that point, the most important of the rules given in the original covenant were repeated, and the Lord said, \u201cWrite down these commandments, for in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel\u201d (Exod. 34:27). The Holy One wished to make the second covenant tougher, including all of the provisos of the original covenant and imposing it upon them with a set of curses against the violators. That is why the end of ch. 26 says, \u201cThese are the laws, rules, and instructions that the LORD established, through Moses on Mount Sinai, between Himself and the Israelite people\u201d (26:46). That is, they are the same as the commandments given as part of the original covenant, in Exodus 21\u201323. As I mentioned, the sabbatical year is commanded there, in Exod. 23:10\u201311. Now, as part of this second covenant, all of its detailed regulations, as well as the punishments for violating it, are spoken.
\nThe Torah is written in the following order: The making of the Tabernacle was commanded as part of the original covenant, which was abrogated before Moses even managed to give those instructions to the Israelites. When the covenant was renewed, Moses came down and \u201cinstructed them concerning all that the LORD had imparted to him on Mount Sinai\u201d (Exod. 34:32), including the making of the Tabernacle. They joyfully accepted that task and went forth immediately to accomplish it. Immediately after the Tabernacle was set up, \u201cThe LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting\u201d (1:1) to give him the commandments about the offerings and all of the rest of the commandments here in Leviticus. Moses immediately gave these commandments to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelite people. When he finished, he said, \u201cThe Lord commanded me on Mount Sinai to explain to you the sabbatical year and the jubilee, and to make a new covenant with you, bound by oath, on the basis of all of these commandments and regulations.\u201d He did not need to offer sacrifices and dash blood on the people now as he had in Exodus 24; they simply accepted the original covenant, now including the curses. That is the point of 26:46. See further my comment to Exod. 34:31. The covenant made on the steppes of Moab similarly affirmed the original covenant: \u201cThese are the terms of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to conclude with the Israelites in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant which He had made with them at Horeb\u201d (Deut. 28:69). Our Sages add, quite truly, that our inhabiting the land was to be conditional on our observing the sabbatical year and the jubilee, which is why they are explained in such detail in this second covenant.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
On Mount Sinai. Unlike the priestly matters of chs. 1\u201324, which were spoken in the Tent of Meeting\/Tabernacle (to which they apply), chs. 25\u201327 were spoken on Mount Sinai. But because they do have some connection to the priests\u2014obviously so in the assessments of ch. 27, but according to Num. 10:8, \u201cThe trumpets shall be blown by Aaron\u2019s sons,\u201d even in blowing the ram\u2019s horn\u2014they were appended here (Bekhor Shor). They are written in the Torah only now because they look forward to the Israelites\u2019 entrance into the land. Nahmanides is quite right in explaining why the book of Leviticus is written in the order that it is. But there is no \u201cnew covenant\u201d made in ch. 26; the original covenant made at Sinai lasts forever (Abarbanel). It is quite new to have the place where the commandment was given mentioned. Clearly Exod. 23:11 was accompanied by the fuller description given in our chapter. Moses recorded it now because he presumed they were going directly into the land; as he says in Num. 10:29, \u201cWe are setting out for the place of which the LORD has said, \u2018I will give it to you\u2019 \u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:2\u20133<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 If the \u201csabbath\u201d (v. 2) of the land and the remission of debts every seven years are two aspects of the same sabbatical year, why is the remission of debts not mentioned until Deut. 15:1?
\n\u2666 If the sabbatical year and the jubilee year are similar, as Maimonides, Nahmanides, and the other commentators seem to think, why is the word \u201csabbath\u201d used seven times in connection with the former but never in connection with the latter?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A sabbath of the LORD. That is, \u201cin honor of the Lord.\u201d As with the weekly Sabbath, it does not mean that this is a year when God rests.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The land shall observe a sabbath. That is, it shall be left idle.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The land shall observe a sabbath of the LORD. Jews are commanded not to let non-Jews sow in the land during the sabbatical year, just as we do not allow them to work on the Sabbath when they are under our authority. Note that this year is a sabbath \u201cof the LORD,\u201d just like the weekly Sabbath. This verse alludes to the secret mystery of world chronology.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A sabbath of the LORD. Rashi comments that this is a sabbath \u201cin honor of the Lord.\u201d But he has not quite understood what the Sifra meant. After all, all of the Sabbaths and the festivals too are \u201cin honor of\u201d the Lord, but none of them is called \u201cof the Lord\u201d; they are described as (e.g.) \u201ca sabbath of complete rest for you\u201d (23:32). When the Sages likened our not working the land during the seventh year to God\u2019s resting on the seventh day, they were alerting us to one of the great mysteries of the Torah, to which Ibn Ezra alludes in his comment to this verse. Now, incline your ear to hear what I am allowed to utter on this topic, according to the words in which I shall utter it. If you are worthy, you will comprehend it.
\nI have already explained, in my comment to Gen. 2:3, that the six days of creation represent the duration of the world, and that \u201cthe seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God\u201d (Exod. 20:10), on which there will be a sabbath of the Great Name, as we learn in M. Tam. 7:4: \u201cOn the seventh day, what would the Levites recite? Psalm 92, \u2018A psalm. A song; for the sabbath day\u2014for that future time that will be all sabbath and rest, for life everlasting.\u201d Just as the seven days of the week allude to what God created in the beginning, so the seven years of the sabbatical cycle allude to what will happen during all the rest of creation. That is why the text is so strict about it, invoking a penalty of exile for violating it (just as with the sexual sins of ch. 18): \u201cThen shall the land make up for its sabbath years throughout the time that it is desolate and you are in the land of your enemies\u201d (26:34). And this is repeated a second time in 26:34, again in 26:35, and yet again in 26:43. M. Avot 5:9 confirms it: \u201cExile comes for delay of justice, for perversion of justice, and for violating the sabbatical year\u201d \u2014for anyone who does so denies God\u2019s work of creation and denies the World to Come. Jeremiah spoke equally harshly, condemning them to exile for freeing their slaves and immediately reenslaving them. For slaves are to enjoy release in the seventh year and at the jubilee just like the land. Now the jubilee is already known from the account of creation in Gen. 1:1\u20132:1, telling us that \u201ceach of you shall return to his holding and each of you shall return to his family\u201d (v. 10) at the jubilee. And that is exceedingly firm; he who trusts need not speak. That is why our verse says that \u201cthe land shall observe a sabbath\u201d and that \u201cyou shall proclaim release throughout the land\u201d (v. 10)\u2014meaning \u201cthe land of eternal life\u201d alluded to in Gen. 1:1. It is of this that God says, \u201cI will remember the land\u201d (26:42). I have already mentioned this several times. Perhaps this is what our Sages were alluding to when they said, \u201cFifty gates of understanding were created in the world, and all of them were handed over to Moses but for one\u201d\u2014for each sabbatical cycle is one gate of the house. In this way was made known to him the secret of all existence, from beginning to end\u2014except for the holy jubilee.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When you enter the land. West of the Jordan (Sforno). A sabbath of the LORD. Observing it \u201cin honor of the Lord,\u201d as Rashi says, means that you do it in order to fulfill God\u2019s commandment, not to improve the soil quality (Hizkuni). As Nahmanides wrote, the six days of creation allude to the duration of the earth, \u201cFor in Your sight a thousand years are like a [single] day that has past\u201d (Ps. 90:4). The world will last for 6,000 years and in the seventh thousand there will be a ceasing, when \u201cthe heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll\u201d (Isa. 34:4), just as a man reads a scroll, rolls it up, opens it again to read, and rolls it up again. The many sevens throughout the Bible hint at this, as does the sabbatical year. But the final end of everything is symbolized by the jubilee year, after seven sabbatical cycles, when the upper and lower worlds alike, matter and form, all revert to nothingness, as they were before creation. This is exactly what Nahmanides thought; I don\u2019t know why he felt he had to be so mysterious about it (Abarbanel). The entire year during which one is idled from agricultural work is to be spent in the service of God (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:3<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Gather in the yield. During these six years, do not leave it unclaimed.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Gather in the yield. Literally, \u201cits\u201d yield. The feminine suffix shows that the yield spoken of here is that of \u201cthe land\u201d (v. 2) in general.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Six years you may sow your field. It is standard biblical language to say that you \u201cshall\u201d do so (see OJPS), meaning that you \u201cmay\u201d do so; the same idiom is found in (e.g.) Exod. 20:9 and Exod. 23:12. The method of our Sages is to understand this as a prohibition couched in positive language: Six years you may sow your field, but not in the seventh. One who does sow in the seventh year therefore violates both the prohibition and this positively framed commandment. A midrash: R. Ishmael says, \u201cWhen Israel obeys the will of the Omnipresent, they observe only one sabbatical year out of every seven, as it says: \u2018Six years you shall sow your field.\u2019 When they do not obey His will, they are forced to observe four every seven years, plowing it one year and not being able to sow it until the next, over and over again\u2014resulting in four sabbatical years out of seven.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Six years you may sow your field and six years you may prune your vineyard and gather in the yield. Having sown and pruned in the sixth year, you may gather in its yield even in the seventh (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:4\u20136<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The land shall have a sabbath. Not \u201cthe country,\u201d but \u201cthe land,\u201d the dirt\u2014the fields and the vineyards.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A sabbath of complete rest. See my comment to 16:31.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. Sowing is the essential agricultural task in a field, as pruning is in a vineyard (Gersonides). A sabbath of the LORD. The repetition from v. 2 indicates that even the peasants will, when they cease work during this year, be roused to seek the Lord in some fashion or other (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not reap. That is, you may not claim possession of it as you would an ordinary harvest; it is considered free for all. The aftergrowth of your harvest. The \u201caftergrowth\u201d refers to what has sprung up from the seeds that fell to the ground during the harvest, even though you yourself did not sow the field. Even this \u201cyou shall not reap.\u201d Or gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines. Rather, the vines you have kept \u201cseparate\u201d (compare 22:2), setting them aside for yourself and restricting other people from them. Only grapes that have been designated as free for all may be gathered.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Aftergrowth. The Hebrew word is obviously related to the verb used in 1 Sam. 2:36, \u201cPlease, attach me to one of the priestly duties.\u201d Untrimmed vines. This word too is obviously related to the word nazirite, referring to avoidance. It shall be a year of complete rest. You \u201cshall not reap\u201d and so on, for \u201cit shall be a year of complete rest for the land.\u201d The land is not in your control during this year.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest or gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines. Rashi\u2019s comment must be understood in light of his Talmud commentary, where (on B. Yev. 122a and B. Suk. 39b) he says that keeping one\u2019s field from public access during the sabbatical year does not mean that what it produces may not be eaten. Once the produce is made free for all, it is permissible. And this is clearly what the Torah intended. With regard to vines as well, Rashi thinks that one may gather the grapes once all of the vines have been released from one\u2019s possession. In fact this whole section treats the aftergrowth and the grapes exactly alike; compare vv. 3 and 4, not to mention Exod. 23:11, \u201cYou shall do the same with your vineyards and your olive groves.\u201d The point of the verse is that what grows on its own, without deliberate plowing or sowing, is called \u201caftergrowth.\u201d The Hebrew word suggests something like an \u201caddendum\u201d; it is a kind of appendix to the harvest of the previous year. Compare Isa. 14:1, \u201cAnd strangers shall join them and shall be appended to the House of Jacob.\u201d The vines too are not \u201cuntrimmed,\u201d but \u201cavoided\u201d; the owner avoids doing the ordinary work of hoeing and pruning, just as if the vines were not even his. See the similar word in Ezek. 14:5, \u201cthey have all been estranged from Me.\u201d Onkelos calls them \u201cabandoned\u201d vines. Or it may simply be that a vineyard which one leaves desolate, \u201covergrown with briers and thistles\u201d (Isa. 5:6), is called a \u201cnazirite\u2019s\u201d vineyard, as the Hebrew word translated \u201cuntrimmed\u201d suggests. For a nazirite, being forbidden to eat or drink any grape products, does not cultivate his vineyard. This would match the idiom in Jer. 7:29, where uncut hair is called \u201cnazirite\u2019s hair.\u201d The sense of the verse is that you may not reap or gather as you ordinarily would, but whatever the land happens to produce is for you, for the poor, and for the animals to eat. The point of the rabbinic discussions, in any case, is that the fruit must not be gathered and stored as usual. This would essentially be stealing it from the poor. That is what is taught in the Sifra, and it is also the clearest explanation of the subject as treated in both the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds. Let the expert scholar examine them closely and he will find it so.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest. You shall not reap as the reapers do, all at once; you may only reap and gather little by little, as necessary, and so that others will also have the opportunity to do so (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You may eat whatever the land during its sabbath will produce. I do not forbid you to eat it or otherwise benefit from it. What I am forbidding you is to treat it as if you owned it. Rather, everyone should be equal with respect to it\u2014you and the laborers alike. Moreover, as with the grapes, you are specifically to eat \u201csabbatical produce\u201d (compare OJPS), not produce that you try to keep as your own possession. You, your male and female slaves. Since Exod. 23:10\u201311 says \u201cSix years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow. Let the needy among your people eat of it,\u201d I might think that those who are not needy are forbidden to eat it. Our verse therefore specifies \u201cyou, your male and female slaves.\u201d Masters and slaves alike may eat of it. The hired and bound laborers who live with you. The gentiles too may eat of it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Whatever the land during its sabbath will produce. What it produces on its own. You. The first \u201cyou\u201d in the verse is plural\u2014\u201cyou\u201d meaning \u201ceveryone.\u201d But this \u201cyou\u201d is singular\u2014\u201cyou,\u201d the owner of the field, are entitled to eat its aftergrowth just like anyone else.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
But you may eat whatever the land during its sabbath will produce. The text literally says, \u201cyou may eat \u2018the sabbath of the land,\u2019 \u201d and it is this \u201csabbath of complete rest\u201d (v. 4) that you may eat\u2014you and your servants and the animals may all live off whatever the land produces on its own as it rests. Or it may be the seventh year itself that is called \u201cthe sabbath of the land,\u201d just as the seventh day of the week is called \u201ca sabbath of the Lord\u201d or simply \u201cSabbath.\u201d But the meaning is clearly that you should eat \u201cthe sabbath-produce\u201d of the land (OJPS)\u2014not the sabbath itself!<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You may eat whatever the land during its sabbath will produce. But you do not bring it as a meal offering or libation (Hizkuni). You, your male and female slaves. During the sabbatical year, you all alike eat from the table of the One on high (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:7\u20138<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your cattle and the beasts in your land. If the beasts may eat of it, is it not obvious that your cattle\u2014whom you are responsible for feeding\u2014may eat of it? But the phrase links them. As long as the beasts are eating what the land produces, you may feed your cattle from what is stored in your home. Once that crop is finished and gone from the field so that the beasts can no longer eat, what your cattle eat at home you must also finish.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your cattle. Which are in your control. And the beasts. Which are not under your control.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Your cattle and the beasts in your land. See Rashi\u2019s comment, which is adapted from the Sifra. But he does not explain what is meant by the food being \u201cfinished.\u201d What it means is that after a certain time he must \u201cfinish\u201d with the various kinds of produce in his house, abandoning them to all comers. This is called \u201cremoval\u201d in the technical language of the rabbinic sources. It does not mean that, once removed, the produce may not be eaten or used in any way, and must be destroyed; this produce is not listed in B. Tem. 33b as among that which must be either burned or buried. Rather, it must be \u201cremoved\u201d from his control, leaving it free for the poor or anyone else: \u201cI have cleared out the consecrated portion from the house; and I have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, just as You commanded me\u201d (Deut. 26:13). The \u201cpoor\u201d (according to M. Shev. 9:8) are those who glean in the fields of others, while the \u201crich\u201d are the owners of the fields themselves\u2014though during this year they too glean what they themselves have technically abandoned in their fields. According to T. Shev. 8:1\u20134, originally the court would give everyone three meals worth of what they had gathered and collect the rest in storehouses in each city, even hiring workers to gather the figs, olives, and so forth as they ripened. They would then distribute the food every Friday, to each house according to its needs. But R. Simeon says in the same Tosefta passage that, when the time for removal came, the rich would distribute produce to their neighbors and their relatives and bring out the rest to the entrance of their homes. They would declare, \u201cBrother Jews! Let everyone who needs come and take!\u201d After which they would put whatever was left back in their homes and go on eating until it was used up. We therefore learn explicitly that \u201cremoval\u201d of the produce means declaring it ownerless. The Sages arranged the technical details of how this was done in various ways to make sure that no one would hold on to the produce or trade in it commercially. Again, in towns big enough for this to be feasible, the \u201cremoval\u201d consisted of bringing the produce to the storehouse, since by this very action the original owner renounced his ownership. Rashi comments (on B. Pes. 52b) that \u201cremoval\u201d consisted of leaving the produce in places where people and animals customarily pass by. Perhaps he thought that \u201cremoval\u201d had to be for the benefit of animals as well as of the poor, to fulfill Exod. 23:11, \u201cLet the needy among your people eat of it, and what they leave let the wild beasts eat.\u201d But this is a bit of an exaggeration. In any case, one is certainly not forbidden to eat the \u201cremoved\u201d produce\u2014though Maimonides and many other scholars think that it is forbidden, and that it must be burnt, scattered to the wind, or thrown into the sea. But, as I have explained, this is not so. What is true is that, after the time of removal, one who keeps such produce inside his house so that only he can eat it is absolutely forbidden to do so. Even this prohibition, however, and perhaps the entire commandment to \u201cremove\u201d the produce is a rabbinic stringency. In this case, the verses cited by the Sifra would simply be rhetorical, not determinative. Some of the halakhic rules of the seventh year would be explained quite nicely by this theory. Someone in the Talmud who was accused of dealing in sabbatical-year produce made such a statement, and since the Sages go so far as to quote that wicked man\u2019s words, they would seem to be true. Or perhaps he followed R. Simeon\u2019s opinion that the seventh year sabbath was biblical in the temple period but is now rabbinic only.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Your cattle and the beasts in your land may eat all its yield. Since it is not yours, you may not even keep the wild animals out of the field (Bekhor Shor). The laws about removal are another way to make sure that food is left in the fields for all to eat\u2014not harvested all at once and stored privately or sold in the market (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall count off seven weeks of years\u2014seven times seven years. Rather, \u201cyou shall count off seven sabbatical years.\u201d You may not have seven sabbatical years in a row, but must take them as scheduled, as the seventh year of every seven-year period. So that the period of seven weeks of years gives you a total of forty-nine years. This further instruction tells you that even if you did not let the land rest during the seventh year, after every 49-year period you must still have a jubilee year and \u201csound the horn loud\u201d (v. 9). But the straightforward sense of the verse is simply that the count of seven sabbatical years gives us an overall count of 49 years.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall count off seven weeks of years. The Hebrew literally says that you shall count them \u201cfor yourselves\u201d (OJPS, \u201cunto you\u201d); see my comment to 23:15. The Sifra adds, \u201cin the court.\u201d But I do not know whether they mean that the High Court is responsible, at the beginning of every year, for counting the years (and the \u201cweeks of years\u201d) and to recite a blessing along with this count, as one does when counting the 50 days between the Feast of Passover and the Feast of Weeks, or whether they simply mean that the court must carefully keep track of the count so as to be able to sanctify the 50th year.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall count off seven weeks of years. Since counting the 50 days after the first sheaf is commanded twice, in 23:15 and in Deut. 16:9, both the court and the public are commanded to count them, and a blessing must be said; this count, commanded only once, is performed solely by the court and with no blessing (Hizkuni). This count is to be made once every seven years, in the seventh year (Gersonides). The Torah tells us that God created His world in seven days to remind us of the seven decades of human life (Abarbanel). A total of forty-nine years. But there is also to be a yearly count totaling 49, as with the days and weeks of the first sheaf (Gersonides). A man should devote the 50th year of his productive life\u2014as he approaches the age of 60\u2014to expiation of sin, so that he can live the remainder of his life in holiness, free from the toil of the material world (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:9\u201310<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why do we \u201csound the horn loud\u201d (v. 9) to proclaim the jubilee, but not to proclaim the sabbatical year?
\n\u2666 Why are words like \u201challow\u201d (v. 10) and \u201choly\u201d (v. 12) used of the jubilee, but not of the sabbatical year?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Then you shall sound the horn loud. More precisely, you shall \u201cmake proclamation\u201d with loud sounds of the horn (see OJPS, and compare Exod. 36:6, \u201cMoses thereupon had this proclamation made throughout the camp\u201d). On the tenth day of the month\u2014the Day of Atonement. Don\u2019t I know that the Day of Atonement occurs on the 10th day of the month? The point is to tell you that sounding the horn\u2014the shofar\u2014supersedes the Sabbath throughout the land. But on Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the month, the shofar may not be sounded on the Sabbath anywhere but in the rabbinic courts.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Then you shall sound the horn loud. There is a dispute about whether the world was created in Nisan or Tishrei. No need to go on at length about it, since those who passed our religion down to us established in our prayers on Rosh Hashanah, the 1st of Tishrei, \u201cThis day is the beginning of Your works, a remembrance of the first day.\u201d The horn is also sounded, of course, at the beginning of the jubilee year, also in Tishrei. Note too that on the Feast of Booths (in Tishrei) all of the people are to be gathered to hear the Torah \u201cthat they may hear and so learn to revere the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 31:12). They could not possibly have waited until the year was more than half over to get around to this. Further evidence pointing in the same direction comes from the Feast of Ingathering being held \u201cat the end of the year\u201d (Exod. 23:16) or \u201cat the turn of the year\u201d (Exod. 34:22). The most reliable evidence comes right here in v. 11, when we are told that at the beginning of the jubilee year \u201cyou shall not sow\u201d; in the land of Israel, sowing begins in \u1e24eshvan, the month after Tishrei. If Nisan was the beginning of the year, then since they could not harvest what was sown in the sixth year, they could not even sow then. After all, it is a year when the land is supposed to rest. Then they again would be forbidden (a second time) from sowing in the sabbatical year itself. But the text forbids us to sow only once, in the seventh, sabbatical year. Judah the Persian says that the Jews originally used a solar calendar. But if this is correct, Moses certainly did not explain to us the exact length of a solar year, nor have the astronomers (so far) been able to bring it to light. For the scholars of India add one-fifth of an hour to the extra quarter day of the solar year, while Ptolemy and his comrades say that the quarter day is actually 1\/300 of a day too long\u2014which is close to our own calendar formula. Others who came later claim that the difference is 1\/106, 1\/110, 1\/130, or even 1\/180 of a day. For a \u201ccomplete year\u201d may be a sidereal year, calculated by the return of the constellations to the same locations as a year ago, or a tropical year, when the sun returns to the same location on the ecliptic. We therefore require tradition to tell us how the calendar should work. Anyway, the fact that our calendar is based on \u201cnew moons\u201d is sufficient to refute this Persian (on whom, see further my comment to Exod. 12:2). The Karaites, by contrast, say that we should follow a lunar year. But (as you know) the moon has no \u201cyear\u201d whatsoever. Those who set up the calendar used the number of months that came closest to the solar year, which they found to be 12. (The sun, of course, has no \u201cmonths\u201d of its own, either.) Similarly, the months, which are made up of complete days, had to approximate as best they could the actual \u201cmonth\u201d of the lunar cycle. Our months therefore follow the moon, but our years must always be brought into agreement with the solar year. Our Sages therefore have transmitted from Moses at Sinai the ruling that the court must insert a leap month seven times in every 19-year cycle (though the months themselves were originally based on actual observation of the new moon). The details of this cycle are known through astronomy.
\nOh, yes\u2014\u201csounding the horn loud\u201d is literally \u201ccausing the horn to pass, loudly\u201d along every route in the country.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
On the tenth day of the month\u2014the Day of Atonement. See Rashi\u2019s comment. You must understand that, with his tremendous expertise in Talmud\u2014which is all laid out before him like a set table\u2014Rashi simply stated this conclusion without realizing that it might mislead lesser mortals. But there is a clear, well-known statement in the Talmud that blowing the shofar on New Year\u2019s, on the Day of Atonement, or even just because you wish to do so is permitted on the Sabbath. For blowing the shofar is a skill, not a task. Originally, in perfect agreement with Jewish law, they would blow the shofar on New Year\u2019s and the Day of Atonement (when they fell on the Sabbath) everywhere. R. Johanan b. Zakkai\u2019s ruling that it should only be blown (in those circumstances) in the rabbinic courts was instituted after the destruction of the Temple, based on the fear that someone would violate the Sabbath by carrying the shofar to someone who would teach him how to blow it. But this ruling has no basis whatsoever in the text. After all, blowing the shofar on the Day of Atonement involves superseding the prohibition of carrying even when the Day of Atonement falls on a weekday, since with regard to carrying (and to work) every Day of Atonement is like a Sabbath. In any case, Rashi wished to teach us that the shofar is blown on the Day of Atonement in every location: You shall have the horn sounded throughout your land. And each person is individually obligated in this matter\u2014unlike the counting of the years leading to the jubilee, which is obligatory on the court alone. (See my comment to v. 8.)<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Then you shall sound the horn loud. In joy at the slaves being freed and the fields returning to their owners (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall hallow the fiftieth year. As it starts. The court hallows it, announcing that the coming year is a sacred one. You shall proclaim release. For slaves. The slave is released even if his six years of service are not up, and even if his ear has been pierced with an awl, making him a slave \u201cfor life\u201d (Exod. 21:6). Said R. Judah: \u201cWhat is the meaning of this word dror? He lives on his own and conducts business anywhere in the country.\u201d That is, he may dar, reside, anywhere he likes\u2014he is under no one else\u2019s authority. That is what \u201crelease\u201d means. It shall be a jubilee for you. This year is distinguished from all others by giving it a special name. And what name is that? The yovel (the \u201cjubilee\u201d in English) is simply another name for the shofar, the ram\u2019s horn, which is \u201csounded loud\u201d to hallow this year. Each of you shall return to his holding. All land returns to its original owner. Each of you shall return to his family. Even the slave whose ear has been pierced.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Each of you shall return to his holding. To the land that he inherited. As explained in v. 28, one who sells his property regains it at no cost in the jubilee year. Each of you shall return to his family. See v. 41. The Hebrew slave returns freely to his family at the jubilee.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall hallow the fiftieth year. By not working the land and by releasing all its inhabitants. Release. This somewhat unusual word simply means \u201cliberty\u201d (OJPS). You will find it used in Prov. 26:2 as the name of a little bird that sings merrily when it is on its own, but in captivity refuses to eat and finally dies. Jubilee. It is this word that actually means \u201crelease.\u201d The Sages understand it to mean \u201csheep,\u201d their proof being its use in Josh. 6:4, \u201cseven ram\u2019s horns\u201d; they understand the year to be named after the ram\u2019s horns that are sounded as it begins. For you. For you, the Israelites, alone. Each of you shall return to his holding. As the text goes on to explain, this means that any land that has been sold returns to its original owner. Each of you shall return to his family. This refers to one who is sold as a slave\u2014if he is an Israelite.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
It shall be a jubilee for you. The commentators agree with Rashi that \u201cjubilee\u201d comes from the word for a ram\u2019s horn. But given that the verse goes on to say that it shall be a jubilee \u201cfor you,\u201d with everyone returning to his holding, it is not clear to me what it would mean that the year itself \u201cis a blast of the shofar.\u201d Perhaps it is to be thought of as \u201cShofar Year\u201d?\u2014the blowing of the shofar reminding everyone of what the year is about: Each of you shall return to his holding and each of you shall return to his family. V. 11 explains similarly, \u201cThat fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you,\u201d reminding everyone not to sow, reap the aftergrowth, or harvest the vines. But I do not think that any of this is correct. The word yovel, \u201cjubilee,\u201d refers literally not to the horn but to the ram. (See Pseudo-Jonathan\u2019s Aramaic translation of our verse as well as the talmudic remark that yovla is Arabic for \u201cram.\u201d) The shofar used on the Day of Atonement need not, of course, be specifically from a ram. Why then would the \u201cjubilee\u201d year be called \u201cthe Year of the Ram\u201d? Ibn Ezra claims that yovel is a word for \u201crelease,\u201d and in my opinion it definitely refers to release, not to the blowing of the shofar. This expression is not found in v. 9, which commands us to \u201csound the horn loud,\u201d but only here, where we are commanded to \u201cproclaim release throughout the land for all its inhabitants.\u201d Everyone should be free to reside wherever they like, wherever their feet yovilum, \u201ccarry them.\u201d The root is used quite often: \u201cThe earth shall yield its produce\u201d (26:4), what it brings forth; \u201cTribute shall be brought to the LORD\u201d (Isa. 18:7); \u201cSending forth its roots by a stream\u201d (Jer. 17:8) that carries its water along; \u201cNo yield is on the vine\u201d (Hab. 3:17); Onkelos translates \u201cAdd incense and take it quickly\u201d (Num. 17:11), using an Aramaic verb from this root. Our phrase is therefore to be understood as follows: The jubilee should be a \u201cbringing\u201d for all of you, a year that brings you all back to your holdings and to your families. \u201cThat fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you\u201d (v. 11). It shall be a jubilee, a year for bringing you home, and nothing but that\u2014you shall not sow, reap, or harvest, but \u201cit shall be holy to you\u201d (v. 12): \u201cEach of you shall return to his holding,\u201d being \u201cbrought\u201d home, as the name of the year indicates.
\nAccording to the True interpretation, dror (\u201crelease\u201d) comes from the word dor (\u201cgeneration\u201d); \u201cOne generation goes, another comes\u201d (Eccles. 1:4). Just so with the jubilee\u2014everyone returns to the Bringing Forth, where his roots are, and that shall indeed be \u201cfor you.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall proclaim release throughout the land for all its inhabitants. But one who sells himself to gentiles outside the land is not released, for we have no power over them (Bekhor Shor). It shall be a jubilee for you. You too shall be free from enslavement by the other nations (Sforno). Each of you shall return to his family. But any children he may have had by a Canaanite slave woman do not return with him, for they have no family (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:11\u201312<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are we told three times (in vv. 10, 11, and 12) that \u201cit shall be a jubilee for you\u201d or the like? Once would have been enough!
\n\u2666 Similarly, why are we told in both v. 10 and v. 13 that \u201ceach of you shall return to his holding\u201d? (Rashi\u2019s explanation is midrash.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you. Hasn\u2019t v. 10 already told us, \u201cyou shall hallow the fiftieth year\u201d? This is to be explained as on B. RH 8b (end). The untrimmed vines. Rather, the \u201cprotected\u201d vines, the ones you have restricted for your own use. You may only harvest vines that have been left free for all. What applies to the sabbatical year applies as well to the jubilee year. See my comment to v. 5. Note that this leads to there being two sacred years in a row: the 49th year of the sequence is a sabbatical year, and the 50th year is the jubilee.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The untrimmed vines. Rather, vines that grew from fallen grapes\u2014even these unintentional growths you may not harvest. They are the vineyard\u2019s equivalent of \u201caftergrowth.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you and therefore you shall not sow.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you: you shall not sow. Just as the land is freed from those who bought it, so too shall it not be enslaved by the original owners, who may not treat it during this year as if they were its masters (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
It shall be holy to you. If any of its produce is sold, the money paid for it acquires \u201choly\u201d status. Ordinarily, when something that is sanctified is sold, the purchase money acquires its sacred status and the original object loses it, becoming nonsacred. But in this case, \u201cit shall be holy\u201d\u2014it shall continue to be holy even after being sold. You may only eat the growth direct from the field. Rather, \u201cyou may only eat the produce by virtue of the field.\u201d Once the field is empty of a crop eaten by the beasts, you must remove that crop from your home as well. Again, the jubilee is compared to the sabbatical year. See my comment to v. 7.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Direct from the field. You may not gather it into your home and then eat what you have gathered. It is forbidden to gather it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall be holy to you. It is the only year with a name of its own. You may only eat the growth direct from the field. \u201cOnly\u201d is not found in the Hebrew. The phrase means that all of you may eat whatever the field produces on its own, just as in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You may only eat the growth direct from the field. If Rashi\u2019s understanding of what this phrase means were correct, it would have nothing to do with the first half of the verse. Ibn Ezra takes it to mean that, as during the sabbatical year, one eats whatever the fields produce on their own. In my opinion, it is saying that in this year one may not harvest, but must go and glean in order to eat, just as do the poor and the needy, the beasts and the cattle. One should not harvest, gather, and store it as one does with the produce of other years. I have discussed this whole question of \u201cremoval\u201d in my comment to v. 7; as I noted there, it is possible that this law is rabbinic, not biblical.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:13\u201315<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is \u201cyou shall not wrong one another\u201d (v. 14) presented as part of the jubilee? It is a commandment unto itself!<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Each of you shall return to his holding. V. 10 has already told us that \u201ceach of you shall return to his holding.\u201d The repetition teaches us an additional rule: if someone sold a field and then his son managed to redeem it, in the jubilee year the field returns to his father.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In this year of jubilee. That is, at the beginning of this year.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Each of you shall return to his holding. Though you cannot work the land agriculturally, you can \u201chold\u201d it by building houses, dovecotes, sheepfolds, and the like (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor. The meaning of this verse is quite clear as it stands. But it can be further interpreted in this additional way: when you sell property, sell it to your neighbor\u2014another Jew; when you buy, buy from your neighbor\u2014another Jew. You shall not wrong one another. The reference is to financial wrong: contrast v. 17.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When you sell property. \u201cYou\u201d is plural here, to include the witnesses that would be involved in such a transaction. Or buy any. Here (as frequently in the Bible) the finite verb that would ordinarily be used with this infinitive absolute is omitted. See, e.g., Exod. 20:8, \u201cRemember the sabbath day.\u201d You shall not wrong one another. Each transaction must be done according to the number of years remaining. Here too the plural verb indicates that this applies to the witnesses as well as to the principals.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not wrong one another. See the next comment.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In buying from your neighbor, you shall deduct only for the number of years since the jubilee. Literally, \u201cAccording to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor\u201d (OJPS). The straightforward explanation, making sense of the verse in its context, is this. You shall not wrong one another, so when you buy or sell land, you must take into account how many years are left until the jubilee. The buyer and seller must prorate the price, based on how many crops the land can be expected to produce. For they know that the land will eventually be returned to the seller, in the jubilee year. If there are only a few years left but he sells it at an exorbitant price, the buyer is wronged. If there are many years left, and the buyer gets many crops from the land, then if he pays too low a price, the seller is wronged. The purchase price must be based on the time remaining before the jubilee, according to \u201cthe number of years since the [previous] jubilee,\u201d which gives us the number of crop years during which it will remain in the buyer\u2019s possession. Our Sages further derive from this verse that the seller cannot reacquire his land until a minimum of two years has passed. Even if he sold the field when it was ready to be harvested\u2014so that the purchaser actually gets three harvests out of those two years\u2014the rule stands. For the verse speaks of crop years, implying (1) that there must be at least two such years, and (2) that they must be \u201ccrop\u201d years, not years of blight.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
In buying from your neighbor, you shall deduct only for the number of years since the jubilee. Rashi understands this to be an explanation of \u201cYou shall not wrong one another\u201d (v. 14). Strictly in terms of settling the straightforward meaning of the text, he is of course correct. Our Sages, however, seeing that v. 14 refers literally to something one buys \u201cfrom the hand\u201d of one\u2019s neighbor (see OJPS), assume that it cannot refer to real estate. As Rashi explains it, it does refer to real estate, according to both a straightforward interpretation and one that fits the rabbinic legal system. Given that v. 14 refers to buying \u201cfrom the hand,\u201d however, we are forced in this case to separate these verses from their context and treat each of them individually. V. 14, then, refers to overcharging someone in a sale of moveable property. Vv. 15\u201316 are an explanation of how to conduct real estate transactions in light of the jubilee year, not an explanation of how not to \u201cwrong one another.\u201d V. 17 then commands \u201cDo not wrong one another\u201d to warn us against wronging one another by speech. It does seem logical to me that someone who intentionally cheats another person in a business transaction, whether it involves movables or real estate, violates a commandment. Our Sages, however, used this opportunity to add here some rules about the amount of permissible profit, which is much greater in the case of real estate than with other goods, and the amount of overcharging that actually invalidates a sale. It was only from complete invalidation of the sale that they eliminated real estate from consideration. Even though it is forbidden to deliberately cheat anyone of even the smallest amount, someone who finds he has overpaid by a small amount ordinarily does not cancel the deal on account of such a small sum. But the Sages fixed on that phrase \u201cfrom your neighbor\u2019s hand\u201d to suggest that there was a rule about \u201cwronging\u201d someone in business that applied to movables but not to real estate\u2014the sale is cancelled and his money is returned. Notice that \u201cwhen you sell\u201d (v. 14) is couched in the plural, indicating both those who sell real estate and those who sell movables, but \u201cor buy any from your neighbor\u201d (the phrase that literally contains the \u201chand\u201d reference) is in the singular, referring only to one who sells movables. Nonetheless, \u201cyou shall not wrong one another\u201d applies to both.
\nThe rabbinic interpretation is quite correct, to the extent that it follows the methodology traditionally used by our Sages to derive legal rulings from the text. Nonetheless, the differentiation between movables and real estate may simply have been a tradition they possessed, which they supported rhetorically by their precise interpretation of v. 14. And why not? They also restricted the rules about overcharging to commercial transactions, excluding those between private individuals. With regard to v. 15, it may be a commandment that we are to know specifically how many years remain until the jubilee, and conduct business on that basis, not pretending that the sale is a permanent one. Both parties are to make sure that the other knows the correct number, not wronging anyone by misleading him on that score. Though the rules about financial wrong differ with regard to price between real estate and movables; with regard to size and amount they are the same, involving a much smaller margin of error.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
In buying from your neighbor, you shall deduct only for the number of years since the jubilee. We learn that land cannot be sold during the jubilee year itself (Gersonides). If the land could be sold during the jubilee year, sometimes it would happen that it would not remain in the hands of the original owners even for a moment, and it would be as if they had never \u201creturned to their holdings\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:16\u201320<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is v. 14 essentially repeated as \u201cDo not wrong one another\u201d in v. 17?
\n\u2666 After saying \u201cYou shall observe My laws,\u201d why does v. 18 repeat \u201cand do them\u201d (see OJPS)?
\n\u2666 Once v. 18 tells us that \u201cyou may live upon the land in security,\u201d why must v. 19 repeat \u201cYou shall live upon it in security\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:16<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
What he is selling you is a number of harvests. He is selling you the number of harvests that remain before the jubilee, not the land itself.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The fewer such years, the lower the price; for what he is selling you is a number of harvests. If the remaining years are few, there is little he can do but farm, since he must return the land in its original condition (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Do not wrong one another. By contrast to v. 14, here the phrase refers to wronging one another by speech. You must not belittle anyone, nor deliberately give him advice that would work out to your benefit rather than his. Should you be tempted to say, \u201cWho could know for sure that I deliberately intended to harm him?\u201d the verse adds: Fear your God. The one who knows thoughts will know. Any time the text mentions something that only the person who is thinking it could know for sure, it adds, \u201cfear your God.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Do not wrong one another. This phrase is directed at the seller, that of v. 14 at the buyer. For I the LORD am your God. And I, as your God, will exact punishment from either of them if he wrongs the other. But if you \u201cobserve My laws\u201d (v. 18), then \u201cthe land shall yield its fruit\u201d (v. 19) in \u201cthe remaining crop years\u201d (v. 15).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not wrong one another. The verb may even apply to physical oppression, as in Isa. 49:26; but in our passage the oppression is strictly financial (Kimhi). I the LORD am your God. \u201cYour\u201d God in the plural, God of the seller and God of the purchaser (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
That you may live upon the land in security. But for transgressing the rules of the sabbatical year, Israel is exiled (see 26:34). In fact, the 70 years of the Babylonian exile were to make up for 70 sabbatical years that were ignored.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall observe My laws and faithfully keep My rules. The \u201claws\u201d are those of the sabbatical year and the jubilee, the \u201crules\u201d those about wronging each other and about releasing slaves and land holdings in the jubilee. That you may live upon the land in security. For transgressing these rules, Israel would be exiled from their land. The repetition of this phrase in v. 19 comes as assurance that \u201cthe land shall yield its fruit\u201d and they would not have to leave it during the sabbatical year in order to eat.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall observe My laws and faithfully keep My rules, that you may live upon the land in security. Do not begrudge the rules about the sabbatical year and the jubilee, for that is what enables you to dwell in security (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The land shall yield its fruit and you shall eat your fill, and you shall live upon it in security. You need not worry about years of scarcity. Even a small amount of the fruit of this land will satiate you.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The land shall yield its fruit. For I shall send My blessing upon it. And even according to common agricultural practice, when the land rests for a while it subsequently produces more, so it is common to let land lie fallow (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
What are we to eat in the seventh year, if we may neither sow nor gather in our crops? Here \u201cgathering in\u201d refers to bringing the crops into your home, that is, claiming ownership of them. If we have not sown, \u201ccrops\u201d can only mean grapes and fruit and anything else that grows of its own accord.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Nor gather in our crops. The Karaites deduce from \u201cour\u201d crops that this refers to crops that have been legally sown, implying to them that the year does indeed begin in the spring, in Nisan. But this is no proof. \u201cOur crops\u201d might just as well refer to the crops that \u201cour\u201d land brought forth on its own. Should they argue that this would be called not a \u201ccrop\u201d but \u201caftergrowth,\u201d they would be contradicted by v. 12, telling us to eat the \u201ccrop\u201d produced by the field on its own. (The same Hebrew word is used in both cases, as you can see in OJPS, which translates it as \u201cincrease.\u201d) While they are at it, let them inform us what they would do in the case of the jubilee year. According to the Karaites, they could not sow in the sixth, seventh, or the eighth year, but only in the ninth, meaning that there would be no harvesting until the tenth year. Why wouldn\u2019t the text mention this? But v. 21 says only that the sixth year will provide enough for three years, not for four. In my view, \u201cit shall yield a crop sufficient for three years\u201d (v. 21) means what it says: \u201cI will ordain My blessing for you in the sixth year\u201d to give you enough for another year, the seventh, and in the case of the jubilee year still another, the eighth\u2014nothing additional to that.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
And should you ask, \u201cWhat are we to eat in the seventh year?\u201d The text is better understood to mean, \u201cShould you ask in the seventh year, \u2018What are we to eat [next year]?\u2019 \u2026\u201d For it is the eighth year that they would be worried about. Since the year begins in Tishrei, in the fall, during the seventh year they would be eating the previous year\u2019s harvest, just as they did every year, until the next harvest, at the Feast of Weeks, and even afterward, until they were finished with all the work of winnowing the new grain. The correct interpretation of v. 21 is therefore that God will ordain an additional blessing (when the jubilee year approaches) to give them, in the sixth year, \u201ca crop sufficient for three years\u201d\u2014the seventh (sabbatical) year, the eighth (jubilee) year, and the ninth year, during which they would still need to rely on the \u201cold\u201d grain, from the harvest of the sixth year. \u201cWhen you sow in the eighth year\u201d (v. 22) means that they should not try to hasten matters by plowing, sowing, and harvesting earlier than normal, since in any case they would \u201cstill be eating old grain\u201d until the crops come in when they are gathered at the time of ingathering, at the Feast of Booths. Notice that the Sifra reads \u201cthree years\u201d in two different ways: (1) the sixth, the seventh, and the year after the seventh; and (2) the seventh, the jubilee, and the year after the jubilee.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:21\u201323<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 How can we possibly \u201csow in the eighth year\u201d (v. 22) when that is the jubilee year?
\n\u2666 Shouldn\u2019t \u201cthe land must not be sold beyond reclaim\u201d (v. 23) have come right after vv. 13\u201316, where selling the land is discussed?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Three years. Including the second half of the sixth year, from the beginning of the harvest in Nisan (in the spring) until the first of the year; the seventh year; and then the first half of the eighth year. For they may only sow in the fall of the eighth year, in \u1e24eshvan, allowing them to harvest in Nisan.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Sufficient for three years. The straightforward sense of the verse is that what you sow in the sixth year will support you during the sixth and seventh years. In the eighth year, you will not only sow, but you will still be eating what remains of the produce of the sixth year, right up to the beginning of the ninth year.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It shall yield. The verb is unusual. Compare mesharat of 1 Kings 1:15, where the expected two ts elide into one to make the word easier to pronounce.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will ordain My blessing for you in the sixth year, so that it shall yield a crop sufficient for three years. If, as Maimonides thinks, the sabbatical year is simply about giving the land a rest, it is hard to see how this could help (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Until the ninth year. Until the Feast of Booths of the ninth year, when the harvest of the eighth year is completely gathered in. For all during the summer of the eighth year it remains in the fields, in the barns; only in Tishrei, in the time of ingathering, is it brought home. Sometimes, in fact, the sixth year must yield sufficient for four years, not three\u2014when the sabbatical year is immediately followed by a jubilee year. But vv. 21\u201322 are talking about the other sabbatical years, the first six of the cycle.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Old grain. OJPS translates more literally; \u201cold\u201d is not an adjective here, but another object of the preposition \u201cof\u201d (which NJPS omits)\u2014\u201cof the former crop itself.\u201d See my comment to the similar usage in Exod. 25:19.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When you sow in the eighth year. By contrast with the \u201cthree years\u201d of v. 21, where the eighth year must be a jubilee year, here the eighth year is simply the first year of a new sabbatical cycle (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim. The positive commandment to return the land to its original owner is here framed in such a way as to include a prohibition as well. The purchaser is forbidden to claim the land in perpetuity. The Hebrew phrase translated by NJPS as \u201cbeyond reclaim\u201d really means \u201cdefinitively.\u201d It must not be sold in a way that definitively severs the original owner\u2019s connection with it \u201cin perpetuity\u201d (OJPS). For the land is Mine. Do not begrudge returning it. It is not even yours.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Beyond reclaim. As with its rhyming synonym, keritut (Deut. 24:1), the first \u05ea of this word tzemitut is part of the root. A verb from this root is found in Ps. 94:23, \u201cthe LORD our God will annihilate them\u201d irreversibly. For the land is Mine. That is one heavy-duty reason! Moses said the same thing in his prayer: \u201cO Lord, You have been our refuge in every generation\u201d (Ps. 90:1). You are like a permanent refuge, though \u201cOne generation goes, another comes\u201d (Eccles. 1:4). Just so, \u201cthe land is Mine\u201d\u2014you are but strangers resident with Me.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The land must not be sold beyond reclaim. If Rashi were correct, the verse should read, \u201cThe land must not be bought beyond reclaim.\u201d But perhaps he reads it as meaning \u201cthe land must not be sold to you beyond reclaim,\u201d as in \u201cthey may not give themselves over into servitude\u201d (v. 42), which in fact reads straightforwardly (in context) as a commandment to the purchaser to release him in the jubilee year. In the same way, \u201cthe land must not be sold beyond reclaim\u201d may also be a commandment to the seller that he may not sell the land outright, telling the purchaser, \u201cI am selling it to you permanently, even after the jubilee.\u201d Even though the jubilee automatically \u201cconfiscates\u201d the land from the purchaser, our verse may nonetheless be a warning to the seller (or to both of them) that they cannot make their deal an outright purchase. If they say that it is, they violate this prohibition, and their saying so is of no value\u2014the land returns to the original owner in the jubilee year no matter what. Maimonides also explains it this way. The point of the rule is that, if the original deal is framed as a lease for however many years are left until the jubilee, the lessee is not upset when he must return the property to its owner. If he thinks he has bought it outright, though, he will find returning it extremely difficult. Though such a supposedly \u201coutright\u201d sale would have no legal effect whatsoever, those who contracted it would still be whipped for violating the King\u2019s decree. In my view, however, \u201cthe land must not be sold beyond reclaim\u201d is not a prohibition, but an exhortation to practice the jubilee year as prescribed and not feel bad about it\u2014for the land is Mine and I do not want you selling it outright as you do with other things. That is the Sifra\u2019s point when they say: You are but strangers resident with Me\u2014do not imagine that you yourselves are the point of it all. \u201cYou are \u2026 with Me,\u201d and it is enough for a slave to be like his master. As long as the land is Mine, it is yours as well. But the True interpretation of \u201cthe land is Mine\u201d\u2014literally \u201cto Me\u201d\u2014is like that of \u201cTell the Israelite people to bring gifts to Me\u201d (Exod. 25:2). That is what the Sages meant by saying, \u201cit is enough for a slave to be like his master.\u201d For the jubilee applies to world history as well. One who is enlightened will comprehend this.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:24\u201328<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What does \u201cyou must provide for the redemption of the land\u201d (v. 24) have to do with the commandments about the jubilee?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:24<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Throughout the land that you hold. Your \u201choldings\u201d or \u201cpossessions\u201d (compare OJPS) include not just land, but also your buildings and your Hebrew slaves. You must provide for the redemption of all of them. See B. Kid. 21a. But the straightforward purpose of the phrase is to introduce the next section, about the man who \u201chas to sell part of his holding\u201d (v. 25). He (or a relative) may redeem it as soon as two years have passed, and the buyer cannot prevent this.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You must provide for the redemption of the land. You must \u201cgrant\u201d (OJPS) a seller the right of redemption (if he wishes) even before the jubilee year.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The land that you hold. Both the land you inherited in Canaan as well as the land of the Amorites.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Throughout the land that you hold. I do not think Rashi is correct to suggest that this is an introduction to vv. 25\u201328. In my view, \u201cthe land that you hold\u201d means \u201cthe land that I am giving you to hold\u201d\u2014that is the land in which you must provide for the redemption of the land during the jubilee year. As in Isa. 48:20\u2014\u201cGo forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea! Declare this with loud shouting, announce this, bring out the word to the ends of the earth! Say: \u2018The LORD has redeemed His servant Jacob!\u201d \u2019\u2014\u201credemption\u201d refers to getting one\u2019s servant out of the hands of those who hold him: \u201cI will free you from the labors of the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage\u201d (Exod. 6:6). Here too, \u201cyou must provide for the redemption of the land.\u201d I wish to deliver the land out of the hands of those to whom I did not give it as their portion. Since, as v. 23 reminds us, all the earth is His, we must be told here that redemption in the jubilee year pertains only to the land of our holdings, not to all the world. But it does apply \u201cin all the land\u201d of our holdings. That means that it does apply in the part of our holdings that is on the east bank of the Jordan, not only in \u201cthe land of the Lord\u201d west of the Jordan, where the sanctuary is located.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If your kinsman is in straits. This teaches that one may not sell one\u2019s land except when impoverishment obliges him to do so. Part of his holding. But not all of it. This teaches proper behavior\u2014even \u201cin straits\u201d one should keep at least a single field for oneself. His nearest redeemer shall come and redeem what his kinsman has sold. The buyer cannot prevent this.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
In straits. Literally, he is \u201clow\u201d; but it simply means that he is \u201cwaxen poor\u201d (OJPS), that is, impoverished. His nearest redeemer. The closest of his kin.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If a man has no one to redeem for him. Is there any such thing as a Jew who has no one to redeem for him? It means a man who has no one able to redeem for him.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If a man \u2026 prospers and acquires enough to redeem with. He is not allowed to borrow the money to redeem himself (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:27<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall compute the years since its sale. There were X years remaining until the jubilee, and you paid me Y amount of money, equaling such-and-such a sum per crop. You\u2019ve eaten the crop yourself for three or four years\u2014subtract their value from the total and take the rest. Refund the difference. Between the purchase price and the value of what the buyer has already gotten. To the man to whom he sold it. He deals only with the original purchaser.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Refund the difference. The years remaining until the jubilee year, whose produce he has not yet consumed. The \u201cdifference\u201d is the number of years in excess of those whose produce he has consumed.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:28<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he lacks sufficient means to recover it. We derive from this that the purchaser is under no obligation to let the original owner redeem part of the property. Until the jubilee. More precisely, \u201cup to\u201d the jubilee year. The purchaser brings none of the property with him into that year. The very beginning of the year restores the property completely to its original owner.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
What he sold. Hebrew literally phrases this as \u201chis sale,\u201d and there are in fact many comparable examples in the Bible. The sense of the idiom is as the English translations take it. It shall be released. \u201cIt\u201d being \u201cwhat he sold.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:29\u201332<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:29<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A dwelling house in a walled city. Technically, a \u201cwalled\u201d city is one that has been surrounded by a wall since the time of Joshua. The redemption period. In the case of land, we are told that he may redeem it anytime after the initial two years are over, but not until then. This case is the opposite. He may redeem it at any time during the first year, but not afterward. A year. The Biblical Hebrew idiom \u201cdays\u201d can refer, as here, to a year\u2019s worth of days (as opposed to a calendar year). For another example, see my comment to Gen. 24:55.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A dwelling house. The fact that there is a separate section dealing with this shows us that \u201cwhat his kinsman has sold\u201d (v. 25) must refer to a field or vineyard. A walled city. A city completely encircled by a wall. A year. Literally, \u201cdays\u201d; as the previous phrase shows, the intent is to wait until cold and heat, summer and winter have cycled back around to where the days were when the house was sold. A year\u2019s worth of days means that the sun has returned to the same place in the ecliptic.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city. It is difficult for a man to sell his house, and he may feel remorseful about having done so. The Torah therefore wished to give him an opportunity to redeem it during the first year after the sale. As Eccles. 5:8 tells us, however, man is enslaved to the land\u2014that is where the food that keeps us alive comes from. So the Torah wished the land to revert to its original owners in the jubilee year. But when a person has moved into a new home, then after the initial regret at leaving the old place, once he has lived in the new place for a year it does not really bother him any longer. It certainly does no harm to his sustenance. But houses in the open country (v. 31) are there for the purpose of protecting the fields and housing the agricultural workers. They therefore follow the rules about land, not those about houses.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city. Since the city is walled, the land around the house will never be used for farming (Hizkuni). A \u201cwalled city\u201d is a place where a wall was built so that a city could be settled inside it\u2014not a city that eventually had a wall built around it (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The house in the walled city shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim. It passes out of the seller\u2019s control and (as the Hebrew literally says) \u201cstands\u201d in the buyer\u2019s control. We translate \u201cthe walled city\u201d following the text as it is to be read: lo with \u05d5, \u201cit has\u201d a wall, instead of what is written, lo with \u05d0, there is \u201cno\u201d wall. Our Sages said: \u201cEven though it does not have one now, it is considered a walled city since previously it had one.\u201d The grammatical problem is that \u201ccity\u201d is feminine, and \u201cit has\u201d should be lah, not lo. But having to use lo with an \u05d0 in the written text, they arranged that the reading tradition should also be lo, as a kind of pun. It shall not be released in the jubilee. Said Rav Safra: \u201cEven if the jubilee occurs during the first year after the purchase, the house is not released.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A full year. Only tradition can tell us what this phrase means\u2014does it refer to a solar year, a lunar year, or a lunar year intercalated to synchronize it with the sun?<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A full year. If it is leap year, the additional month is part of a \u201cfull\u201d year (Hizkuni). A \u201cfull\u201d year means 365 days. I suppose one could understand it as a lunar \u201cyear\u201d of 355 days. But an actual \u201cfull year\u201d lasts for 365\u00bc days (Abarbanel). The walled city. See Rashi\u2019s comment. What \u201chas\u201d the wall is not the feminine \u201ccity\u201d but the masculine \u201cfield\u201d that existed there before the wall was put up (Hizkuni). It shall not be released in the jubilee. The houses that they had in those days did not usually last 50 years anyway (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Houses in villages. More precisely, as Onkelos translates, \u201ctowns that are open,\u201d unwalled. You will find the word used more than two dozen times in Joshua (\u201cthe towns with their villages\u201d) and elsewhere as well, e.g., Gen. 25:16. Shall be classed as open country. They are therefore treated like pieces of land. They can be redeemed at any time up until the jubilee, at which time, if they have not already been redeemed, they automatically revert to their original owners. They may be redeemed. Immediately, if you want, which gives the seller of such a house an advantage over someone who sells land. The one who sells land must wait two years to redeem it. They shall be released through the jubilee. For nothing.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Shall be classed as open country. More precisely, they shall be classed \u201cwith\u201d the open country (see OJPS). This preposition, which usually means \u201con,\u201d can sometimes mean \u201cwith,\u201d as in Exod. 35:22, \u201cThe men along with the women.\u201d They may be redeemed. The Hebrew actually switches to a singular here: \u201cIt may be redeemed\u201d\u2014each and every such house may be redeemed. You will find similar examples of the distributive (as this is called) in Gen. 49:22 and Jer. 31:15.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The cities of the Levites. The 48 cities that were given to them. The Levites shall forever have the right of redemption. The right of redemption starts immediately, even before two years are up, if they sold a field in the two 2,000 cubits of pasture land outside the town; and they retain this right forever, even if they sold a house in a walled city\u2014its permanent ownership is not transferred after a year. Such a house may always be redeemed.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Forever. \u201cPerpetual\u201d (OJPS).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:33\u201335<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Such property as may be redeemed from the Levites. This refers to a house or field bought from a Levite, which returns to him in the jubilee year. The ownership of the house does not transfer after a year, as it would in the case of an ordinary Israelite. \u201cRedeemed\u201d here must mean \u201cpurchased,\u201d as OJPS translates. Another reading: even if the purchaser is another Levite, the original Levite owner retains the permanent right to redeem it. Houses sold in a city they hold. OJPS translates in accordance with the \u201cother\u201d reading just cited: \u201cThen the house that was sold in the city of his possession, shall go out in the jubilee,\u201d even if the original Levite did not manage to redeem it earlier from the Levite to whom he sold it. For the houses in the cities of the Levites are their holding among the Israelites. They had no fields or vineyards, just these cities and their surrounding pastures. The 48 cities are their equivalent of the land possessed by the rest of the Israelites. Their property in these cities therefore returns to them in the jubilee year just as the Israelites\u2019 land returns to them, so that their permanent inheritance, like that of the Israelites, is not eradicated.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Such property as may be redeemed from the Levites. As v. 32 explains, the Levites have a permanent right to redeem their holdings. If a Levite wishes to redeem his property but cannot afford to do so, it nonetheless shall be released through the jubilee and return to him then at no cost.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Such property as may be redeemed. Having spoken of the perpetual \u201cright of redemption\u201d (v. 32) of such houses, the text now describes their \u201cpurchase\u201d (OJPS) as \u201credemption.\u201d But others explain the use of this word to mean that such houses may be redeemed even if the purchaser was also a Levite, who might be presumed to have some special rights in the matter. Houses sold in a city. Rather, \u201cwhether it is a house or a city that was sold,\u201d the same rule applies. Shall be released. The Hebrew appears to say \u201cand it shall be released,\u201d but in fact the vav that begins this phrase does not mean \u201cand,\u201d but is an emphatic particle akin to Arabic fa.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Such property as may be redeemed from the Levites. V. 32 has told us that redemption applies to the Levites (and, as Rashi explains, both immediately and permanently), but it has not explained whether a relative may redeem property for the Levite or whether the jubilee applies to them. Our verse therefore explains that either the Levite himself or a relative may redeem the property, and that if neither of them does so beforehand, it shall be released from the purchaser through the jubilee. The jubilee does therefore apply to them, and transactions must follow the same rules that apply to Israelites (v. 27). But the Sages explain this verse as speaking of a Levite who buys from another Levite. Perhaps this is why OJPS translates the beginning of the verse, \u201cAnd if a man purchase of the Levites.\u201d Following this interpretation, it seems to me we must explain the verse as referring to the ancient Israelite custom that, if a man was forced to sell his property, the first one in line to inherit it would come and buy it. Such a purchase was called \u201credemption.\u201d Exactly this happened to Jeremiah: Hanamel, the son of his uncle Shallum, came to him and said, \u201cBuy my land in Anathoth, for you are next in succession to redeem it by purchase\u201d (Jer. 32:7). See also Ruth 4, where Boaz calls the \u201credeemer\u201d who is first in line to purchase Naomi\u2019s property. It seems to me that the \u201cfirst redeemer\u201d must always have had priority in such a purchase, and that if anyone else wished to buy the property, he would have to acquire this right (as did Boaz in Ruth 4:8) by a symbolic acquisition of the redeemer\u2019s personal property. Our verse, then, would be saying that, even though the next Levite in line to inherit has \u201credeemed\u201d the property, it nonetheless reverts to the original owner in the jubilee year. There was no need to point out that this was true in the case of a non-Levite purchaser, since this would fall under the category of ordinary Israelite transactions already discussed. The only distinction is that, for Levites, even houses fall under the jubilee rules. The important point is that these houses do not belong to the tribe of Levi as a whole, but to their individual owners. (But even for ordinary Israelites, a \u201credemption\u201d purchase reverts to the original owner in the jubilee.) It may actually be possible that the Levites are simply not permitted to sell houses in one of their cities to an Israelite. In that case, every sale of a house (to a brother Levite) would fall under the category of \u201credemption.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Such property as may be redeemed from the Levites. \u201cRedeemed\u201d is used for \u201cpurchased\u201d here because the Levites have no holdings in the land; everything of theirs belongs to the Israelites as a whole, so whatever an Israelite \u201cpurchases\u201d from them is really being redeemed (Hizkuni). The houses in the cities of the Levites are their holding among the Israelites. If they could be permanently sold, each of the cities of the Levites would eventually revert to whichever Israelite tribe it had originally been taken from (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:34<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But the unenclosed land about their cities cannot be sold. It cannot be permanently acquired by the temple treasury. Compare 27:16\u201321, where land consecrated by an Israelite may at some point pass into the possession of the Temple, after which he can no longer redeem it. The Levites always retain the right to redeem such land.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The unenclosed land about their cities. See Num. 35:1\u20138.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:35<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And you hold him. Rather, \u201cthen you must hold him\u201d (compare OJPS). Do not let him fall any further to a state where it will be difficult to set him back up on his feet. As soon as \u201chis means fail\u201d (OJPS), hold him right there. Think of a donkey carrying a load. As long as the load is still on top of the donkey, a single person can steady it and keep it in position. Once it falls to the ground, even five people may have difficulty raising it back to its place. As though a resident alien. Even if he is \u201ca resident alien\u201d or, rather, \u201ca convert or a settler\u201d (compare OJPS). A \u201csettler\u201d is one who has accepted the obligation not to worship idols and the other Noahide commandments but has not converted to Judaism. He may therefore (e.g.) eat meat that has not been properly slaughtered.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your kinsman. Another Jew. Comes under your authority. Literally, \u201cif his hand gives way.\u201d Compare \u201cHe shall never be shaken\u201d (Ps. 112:6) and \u201cWhen I think my foot has given way\u201d (Ps. 94:18). When \u201chis means fail with you\u201d (compare OJPS), the implication is that when he is with you and you see what is happening you are obligated to help. You hold him. Not \u201cand\u201d you hold him, but \u201cthen you must hold him up\u201d (compare OJPS). You thus counteract \u201chis hand gives way.\u201d As though a resident alien. Rather, you must do this whether he is your kinsman, from your own land, or a resident alien.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Let him live by your side. Rather, \u201che shall live\u201d with you (compare OJPS). This is a positive commandment to help the person live and, more generally, to save life when necessary. Ben Peturi discusses the following situation: Two people are traveling together. One of them has a canteen full of water. If he alone drinks, he will be able to make it to the next inhabited place, but if they both drink, both will die. Ben Peturi said it was better for both to drink and die, so that one not see the death of the other. But R. Akiva invoked our verse: \u201che shall live with you\u201d\u2014your life takes precedence over his. V. 36 repeats the phrase for emphasis. Rabbinic interpretation, however, links the phrase there with the prohibition of interest at the beginning of the verse, commanding that you return to him the interest you may have illegally taken\u2014so that he may live. It is akin to one who decides to \u201crestore that which he got through robbery or fraud\u201d (5:23). Note that NJPS implicitly makes \u201clet him live by your side\u201d the beginning of the \u201cthen\u201d clause; OJPS follows rabbinic tradition in understanding the verse to read, \u201cIf he falls \u2026 then you must uphold him.\u201d Onkelos takes an intermediate position, understanding as follows: \u201cIf he falls \u2026 and you hold him, then as a resident alien let him live with you.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Being in straits. Literally, \u201cif his hand gives way.\u201d A midrash: The hand below receives from the hand above that gives. It is therefore appropriate to say of a poor man that \u201chis hand gives way\u201d (Bekhor Shor). The Hebrew does not say \u201cif his hand gives way,\u201d but \u201cif his hand goes downward,\u201d lower and lower (Abarbanel). Comes under your authority. \u201cIf his means fail with you\u201d (OJPS)\u2014you must uphold him if he is \u201cwith you,\u201d but not if he has fallen in with bad companions (Hizkuni). Kinsman \u2026 resident \u2026 alien. In descending order of closeness and responsibility: first your Israelite kinsman, then a \u201cresident\u201d (properly, a \u201cconvert\u201d), then a non-Jew who resides in the land (Gersonides). It is more important to take care of one who is \u201cwith you\u201d; the poor of one\u2019s own city always take priority (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:36\u201338<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:36<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Advance or accrued interest. The Sages consider \u201cinterest\u201d as a single category, but two words describe it here to make one who takes interest culpable of violating two different prohibitions. Fear your God. People naturally find it hard to give up being paid interest; they explain it to themselves as the price the other person pays for the lender not being able to access his own money. They must therefore be reminded to \u201cfear your God.\u201d Alternatively, one may pretend that the money belongs to a gentile so that he can lend it to a Jew at interest. Only the lender himself knows his real intent in such a case; it was therefore necessary to add, as in all such cases, \u201cfear your God.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Advance or accrued interest. More literally, \u201cinterest or increase\u201d (OJPS). We know the difference between these terms via tradition. V. 37 explains them as well.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Advance or accrued interest. Rashi thinks neshekh and tarbit are simply two different words for \u201cinterest\u201d; see his comment. But the straightforward explanation would seem to me that neshekh is compound interest\u2014where one borrows a mina at the cost of five shekels interest per year until it is repaid. It is called neshekh\u2014literally, \u201cbite\u201d\u2014because compound interest will eventually bite you like a snake and will end up bleeding you dry. But tarbit is simple interest: one borrows a mina for a certain period of time, at the end of which one owes an extra five shekels. This kind of interest does not \u201cbite,\u201d since it is a fixed sum. But it is nonetheless an \u201cincrease\u201d (OJPS) and therefore forbidden.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not exact from him advance or accrued interest. You are not to exact interest from him, because he is your \u201ckinsman\u201d (v. 35). For Deut. 23:21 tells us, \u201cyou may deduct interest from loans to foreigners.\u201d \u201cExacting\u201d interest does not refer only to the moment at which it is taken; as long as you have possession of it, you have \u201cexacted\u201d it (Gersonides). Fear your God. Perhaps you, your son, or your grandson will one day become impoverished; what goes around comes around (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:37<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Do not lend him your money at advance interest, or give him your food at accrued interest. It was in fact the custom to lend money at compound interest. But one would borrow food only until the harvest, at which time it would be repaid with an additional amount. (See my comment to the previous verse.)<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:38<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Who brought you out of the land of Egypt. Remember that I was able to distinguish there between those who were first-born children and those who were not. I will also know if a lender is falsely claiming that the money he lends belongs to a gentile\u2014and I will be able to punish him. Another reading: I brought you out of Egypt to have you accept the responsibility of obeying My commandments, no matter how onerous they might seem. To give you the land of Canaan. As a reward for accepting My commandments. To be your God. I am God for all who reside in the land of Israel, and all who leave it are the equivalent of idolaters. We see that lending at interest is tantamount to idolatry.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I the LORD am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. Where you were aliens. Now I have given you holdings of your own. Thus this verse sums up both vv. 35\u201337 and the preceding sections about redemption of the land. At the same time, \u201cyour kinsman, being in straits\u201d (v. 35) provides the rationale for the scenario the text goes on to describe in vv. 39 and following: when a Jew\u2019s means fail him so disastrously that he is faced with the necessity of selling himself into slavery, he will nonetheless go free at the jubilee. Now you see that the entire chapter falls into place coherently.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:39\u201344<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:39<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The treatment of a slave. Degrading treatment, whose purpose is to demonstrate that he is a slave. You may not make him carry your things behind you on the way to the bathhouse or put your shoes on for you.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The treatment of a slave. The kind of ruthless treatment appropriate to a Canaanite slave.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And must give himself over to you. Rather, \u201cand is sold to you\u201d\u2014whether he sells himself on his own initiative, or steals from you and as a consequence is sold by court order.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Do not subject him to the treatment of a slave. E.g., making him clean out the cow barn. This kind of work is more difficult for a slave than for a free man, for the free man can do it or not, as he chooses (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:40<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A hired or bound laborer. You may make him do agricultural work or labor as an artisan, and must treat him the way you would any such worker. Only until the jubilee year. If the jubilee year arrives before his standard six-year term is up, it frees him immediately.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
He shall remain with you as a hired or bound laborer. Rather, \u201cas a hired servant, and as a settler.\u201d You must not treat him as a slave or overwork him, but must treat him as someone hired for an annual wage to do the kind of work that free people do, or as someone who comes to the country to work of his own volition. As Laban said to Jacob when he came to Haran, \u201cJust because you are a kinsman, should you serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?\u201d (Gen. 29:15). The Sifra reads our verse as follows: \u201cAs a hired servant\u201d\u2014\u201cYou must pay him his hire on the same day\u201d (Deut. 24:15). \u201cAs a settler\u201d\u2014\u201cHe shall live with you in any place he may choose among the settlements in your midst, wherever he pleases; you must not ill-treat him\u201d (Deut. 23:17). \u201cWith you\u201d\u2014with you in terms of food, with you in terms of drink, with you in terms of linen. You must not eat white bread while he eats black bread, drink aged wine while he drinks raw wine, or sleep on fluff while he sleeps on straw.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
A hired or bound laborer. The \u201chired\u201d laborer is the Hebrew slave who serves for six years; the \u201cbound\u201d one is the slave who has had his ear pierced, as in Exod. 21:6 (Kimhi). Both of them are \u201chired\u201d; the \u201chired\u201d laborer is hired by the day, the \u201cbound\u201d laborer by the year (Hizkuni). He falls in between the two categories. He can be asked to do more than the laborer hired for a specific task, who need not do any other kind of work, but not as much as the bound laborer, who is bound to do whatever the master requires of him (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:41<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He and his children with him. Said R. Simeon: Perhaps he was sold to you, but who sold his children? We learn from this that his master is responsible for feeding his children. He shall \u2026 return to his ancestral holding. To the same respect in which his ancestors were held. He may not be held in scorn for his time as a bound laborer. \u201cHolding\u201d here is a metaphor, as in English.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Then\u2014when the jubilee year arrives\u2014he and his children with him shall be free. The Sages have handed down that this verse explains the meaning of \u201che shall then remain his slave for life\u201d (Exod. 21:6); see my comment to that verse.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:42<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For they are My servants. I hold the first lien on them. They may not give themselves over into servitude. More precisely, \u201cthey shall not be sold as bondmen\u201d (OJPS). No one may announce about them, \u201cSlaves for sale!\u201d nor put them on the block.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For they are My servants. For I acquired them from the house of bondage.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They may not give themselves over into servitude. Doing so would be tantamount to removing the yoke of My service from off their necks (Gersonides). Having sold himself to another master, he deserves to be completely enslaved; but as My slave he does not have the power to sell himself completely to someone else (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:43<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not rule over him ruthlessly. You may not give him unnecessary work in order to make him miserable. Don\u2019t say \u201cHeat up this cup for me\u201d if you don\u2019t really need it done, or \u201cKeep hoeing under this vine until I come back.\u201d You may think, \u201cNo one really knows whether this is necessary or not. I\u2019ll just say that it was.\u201d Since this can be concealed in the mind, the text goes on to say: You shall fear your God.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not rule over him ruthlessly. The same phrase is repeated in v. 46 for added emphasis (Bekhor Shor). The fact that this commandment must be emphasized tells us that this transgression was in fact fairly common (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:44<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Such male and female slaves as you may have. You may think: \u201cWho then can be my personal attendant? I cannot order my Jewish servants to do it, and I have no non-Jewish slaves, for You warned me, \u2018In the towns of the latter peoples, however, which the LORD your God is giving you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive\u2019 [Deut. 20:16]. So who can attend me?\u201d It is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. Not those who dwell within your territory, for of them I did indeed say, \u201cYou shall not let a soul remain alive.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
It is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. E.g., from Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Aram.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:45\u201348<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:45<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you. Those who came from outside your territory to find wives. In this case, the children acquire their father\u2019s status and do not fall into the category of \u201cYou shall not let a soul remain alive.\u201d So you may buy them as slaves.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you. Those from among the nations I listed in my comment to v. 44 who reside in the land of Canaan, or the Egyptians, or in fact any nation on earth except for the seven nations listed in Deut. 7:1, about whom we are instructed, \u201cyou shall not let a soul remain alive\u201d (Deut. 20:16). You see that it is forbidden even to feed someone of the seven nations. Our Sages refer to the category of slave described in vv. 44\u201346 as \u201cCanaanite slaves\u201d because they live in Canaan, not because they are ethnically Canaanite. Or perhaps they understood more about this matter than we do, for our intelligence is far inferior to theirs.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
These shall become your property. Literally, \u201cyour holding,\u201d so called because the owner is stuck in the place and \u201cheld\u201d by it; see Gen. 47:27 and Num. 32:30, which use the idiom \u201cto be held by\u201d property (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:46<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You may keep them as a possession for your children after you. More precisely, \u201cYou may take possession of them.\u201d It cannot mean, as OJPS translates, \u201cAnd ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you\u201d; this would have to be a Hiphil verb, not a Hitpael. No one shall rule ruthlessly over the other. And that means no one. A chieftain may not rule ruthlessly over his clan, nor the king over his subjects.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For all time. Such you may treat as slaves. NJPS ignores the punctuation; the correct translation is \u201cof them may ye take your bondmen for ever\u201d (OJPS). This would seem to say merely that it is permissible. But as we find the Sages saying that it is a commandment to do so, we accept it as such. As for your Israelite kinsmen. You must distinguish between your kinsmen and foreigners.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:47<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If a resident alien among you has prospered. What caused him to prosper? His being involved with you. And your kinsman being in straits, comes under his authority. What caused him to be in straits? His being involved with the resident alien and having learned his ways. An offshoot of an alien\u2019s family. The Hebrew word translated \u201calien\u201d sometimes refers to a convert, but here it clearly means a gentile. The \u201coffshoot\u201d does not mean a branch of the family; it refers to the gentile\u2019s \u201coff-brand\u201d religion. Our verse applies the expression to one who \u201cgives himself over\u201d to serve idolatry\u2014not out of religious conviction, but to chop wood and draw water for them.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
An offshoot. Literally, one who is \u201cuprooted\u201d from this kingdom to a place that is far from your land. So he is neither a convert nor a resident alien, a gentile nor a citizen.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
An offshoot of an alien\u2019s family. This word \u201coffshoot\u201d is a hapax legomenon; but etymologically it means \u201croot.\u201d Like that word, however, it can be used with the opposite meaning. It is one who has been \u201cuprooted\u201d from an alien\u2019s family and become a Jew.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
An offshoot of an alien\u2019s family. If Rashi\u2019s comment (which is taken from the Sifra) were correct, the text should really read \u201can \u2018offshoot\u2019 or an alien\u2019s family.\u201d Idolatry is referred to as an \u201coffshoot\u201d\u2014better translated as \u201ca root\u201d\u2014because a person is obligated to uproot it wherever it appears. But Onkelos translates the word as \u201ca heathen,\u201d and this is correct. That is, the verse refers to being sold to a resident or to an actual heathen related to that resident. Such a resident who succeeded in establishing himself among us might well end up having an impoverished Jewish kinsman sold to one of his heathen relatives. In such a case, v. 48 not only gives this man the right to be redeemed but explicitly commands every Jew to redeem him. It then goes on to command his close kin to take precedence in this task. The purpose of this commandment is quite clear\u2014it is to keep him from being assimilated and learning their ways. For if one is sold to another Jew, it is merely permissible, not obligatory, to redeem him. That is why v. 55 adds, \u201cit is to Me that the Israelites are servants.\u201d Even though foreigners and heathens are not bound by the jubilee commandments, they must not buy My servants to be their servants.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
An offshoot of an alien\u2019s family. An \u201coffshoot\u201d is the opposite of a resident\u2014one who dwells outside the land (Hizkuni). The resident is permitted to dwell in the land on condition that he renounce idolatry; the \u201coffshoot,\u201d by contrast, is someone whom we force to leave the land because he remains an idolater (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:48<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall have the right of redemption. The Hebrew says simply, \u201cHe shall have redemption\u201d\u2014immediately. Do not let him assimilate.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:49\u201355<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:49<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Or, if he prospers. If he himself can afford to do so, because he has either found or inherited something valuable. But more usually, as the beginning of the verse indicates, it takes another family member to redeem him.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
His uncle or his uncle\u2019s son. The closest relative takes priority (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:50<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Until the jubilee year. For the master does not acquire the laborer himself, he merely acquires the right to his labor until the jubilee year (see v. 54). Even though the master here is a gentile living under Jewish authority, you must not try to cheat him\u2014that would be a desecration of God\u2019s name. When the laborer is ready to redeem himself, he must calculate precisely what the price per year was and deduct that amount. If he sold himself 20 years before the jubilee and the gentile paid him 20 minas, that means the gentile paid him at a rate of one mina per year. If he worked for him for five years, the laborer prorates that amount and gives him 15 minas: The price of his sale shall be applied to the number of years, as though it were for a term as a hired laborer under the other\u2019s authority. The full price paid is treated as if it were the total of his pay year by year, and the proper amount is deducted accordingly.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
As though it were for a term as a hired laborer. Though he sold himself for a lump sum, he is treated as if he were owed payment annually.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The price of his sale. Literally, the \u201csilver\u201d; he may not claim his freedom by payment in kind. The Torah gives the slave\u2019s master some protection, in that the slave cannot purchase his freedom with goods that could not actually be sold on the market (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:51<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If many years remain. Until the jubilee. In proportion. See my comment to v. 50.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If many years remain. A slave is undoubtedly worth more to his master after he has been with him for some time than he is at the very beginning of his service; nonetheless, even in the early years he is redeemed simply by prorating his purchase price (Sforno). He shall pay back for his redemption in proportion to his purchase price. Should the slave have in the meantime learned a skill that makes him worth more, his master cannot say, \u201cIf he were to stay with me until the jubilee, I would make such-and-such an amount\u201d (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:52<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And if few years remain. Again, ve- is not \u201cand\u201d but an emphatic like Arabic fa. Whether many years remain or few, the same procedure applies. He shall make payment for his redemption. The Hebrew literally says, \u201cHe shall give back his redemption,\u201d not mentioning \u201cpayment\u201d or \u201cprice\u201d (OJPS). But this is clearly what is meant.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If few years remain. Literally, \u201cif he remains but little in the years.\u201d If his value has gone down, his redemption price is based on his value, not on the original purchase price. But the straightforward sense is as the translations have it (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:53<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight. This is not a commandment to the slave\u2019s purchaser, but to you.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall be under his authority as a laborer hired by the year. We know this already from v. 50; it is repeated here in order to emphasize that he shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight. We must not permit an alien to treat him ruthlessly.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:54<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he has not been redeemed in any of those ways. For he is redeemed (if at all) in \u201cthose\u201d ways, and not at the end of six years, as is a Jew serving another Jew. He and his children with him. The gentile is obligated to feed his children; see my comment to v. 41.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If he has not been redeemed in any of those ways. Rather, \u201cduring any of those years that remain before the jubilee.\u201d But others understand it to mean \u201cby any of those\u201d mentioned in vv. 48\u201349.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 25:55<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants. I hold the first lien on them. I the LORD your God. Whoever enslaves them below, it is as if he enslaves \u2026 on high.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants. You must make this clear to the alien who buys an Israelite as a slave.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I the LORD your God. I keep you and your land free (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:1\u20132<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:1<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall not make idols for yourselves. Despite the Christian chapter division, this does indeed belong with the previous passage, as Jewish tradition keeps it. This prohibition is directed specifically at a Jew who sells himself to a gentile master. He must not think: \u201cSince my master engages in forbidden sex, so will I; since my master worships idols, so will I; since my master violates the Sabbath, so will I.\u201d That is exactly the situation contemplated by these two verses. And the whole passage follows a logical progression. Ch. 25 begins by proclaiming that the land is to rest every seventh year. Anyone who so loves money that he is suspected of dealing in sabbatical-year produce will end up having to sell his possessions (see v. 14). If he does not change his ways, he will end up having to sell his land. If he still does not change, he will end up selling his house and then borrowing at interest\u2014each step getting progressively worse\u2014and at last selling himself, at first to another Jew and finally to a gentile. Figured stones. Rather, \u201ccovering\u201d stones. A related word is used in Exod. 33:22, \u201cI will put you in a cleft of the rock and shield you with My hand.\u201d These are stones that cover the ground, creating a stone floor. To worship upon. Literally, \u201cto bow down\u201d upon it (see OJPS), even to the God of heaven. For such bowing down, with one\u2019s hands and feet on the ground, is forbidden by the Torah anywhere \u201cin your land\u201d; it is permitted only in the Temple.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Figured stones. This word maskit comes from \u05e9\u05d1\u05d4, \u201clook,\u201d just as marbit (\u201cinterest,\u201d v. 37) comes from \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4, \u201cincrease.\u201d But I can find no other example of it than \u201ctheir fancies are extravagant\u201d (Ps. 73:7), where it refers to things that one sees in the imagination. In our verse too the word alludes to seeing. These are stones that have images drawn on them to look at.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall not make idols for yourselves. Having been sold to a gentile, he must be warned against idolatry. He must not serve his master in anything to do with an idol, nor work for his master on the Sabbath. And he must still \u201cvenerate My sanctuary\u201d (v. 2). Even once he is sold, he must still come to the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals. The non-Jew must buy him with this understanding. But possibly \u201cYou shall not make idols for yourselves\u201d follows naturally after \u201cthey are My servants\u201d (25:55). As My servants, they must serve Me alone, and no others. Carved images. Everyone knows what is meant by this. Pillars. To set the images on. Or place figured stones in your land. \u201cFigured\u201d stones are stones with pictures on them. Compare Ps. 73:7, \u201ctheir fancies are extravagant,\u201d and Isa. 2:16, \u201cAgainst all the ships of Tarshish and all the delightful imagery.\u201d You shall not set these up in your land, as the idolaters do with statues of Hermes. For I the LORD am your God. It is Me whom you must worship. The Jerusalem Targum says this explicitly.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall not make idols for yourselves. Rashi\u2019s comment about what the slave \u201cmust not think\u201d is taken from the Sifra, which adds, \u201cThus the verse warns him about the commandments.\u201d These two verses warn the Jewish slave of a gentile master that he must avoid idolatry, keep the Sabbath, and venerate the sanctuary by continuing to bring offerings there on the pilgrimage festivals. These three commandments stand in place of all the others, to which the same applies.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall not make idols for yourselves. They will not do you one bit of good (Bekhor Shor). Carved images or pillars. I think \u201cimages\u201d are statues that were made simply for decoration, not for worship. Even in worship of the true God we are forbidden to set up such images or pillars (Gersonides). I the LORD am your God. Does a slave whose master sells him, or a woman whose husband divorces her, still have any connection with them? But I the Lord am your God even when, in exile, you are enslaved to the other nations (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Mine, the LORD\u2019S. Rather, \u201cI am the LORD\u201d (OJPS) and can be relied on to give you your reward.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall keep My sabbaths. This refers to the sabbatical years described in ch. 25. Venerate My sanctuary. Rather, \u201cthe thing that is sacred to Me\u201d\u2014the jubilee: \u201cIt shall be holy to you\u201d (25:12). But in my opinion, \u201csabbaths\u201d (in the plural) means the Sabbath that occurs week after week: \u201cSabbath after sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship Me\u201d (Isa. 66:23). For v. 1 says that you must not place figured stones in the land \u201cto worship upon.\u201d The point is that you must come to My sanctuary every Sabbath to worship Me\u2014you may not do so on \u201cfigured stones.\u201d The day that is specially set aside for the worship of God (as I have explained in my comment to Exod. 20:8\u201311) is therefore mentioned, as is the place that is specially set aside for that purpose. Mine, the LORD\u2019S. Rather, \u201cI am the LORD\u201d (OJPS). I rested from all My work on the Sabbath, and My presence resides in the sanctuary. That is what calls for \u201creverence\u201d (OJPS)\u2014not the building.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary. Some texts of the Sifra passage mentioned in v. 1 say not \u201cthus the verse warns him\u201d but \u201cthere [here in v. 2] the verse warns him.\u201d This hints that all of the commandments fall under the two categories of \u201csabbath\u201d and \u201csanctuary.\u201d One who is enlightened will understand.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall keep My sabbaths. Though rest on the Sabbath is a pale imitation of the freedom you once enjoyed (Sforno). And venerate My sanctuary. The holy places in the lands of your exile\u2014the synagogues and houses of study (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:3\u20136<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are all the rewards offered to Israel, and the punishments with which they are threatened, physical rather than spiritual?
\n\u2666 Why must the promise that Israel will \u201cdwell securely in your land\u201d (v. 5) be repeated no less than three times in v. 6: \u201cI will grant peace in the land \u2026 you shall lie down untroubled \u2026 no sword shall cross your land\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If you follow My laws and faithfully observe My commandments. \u201cFollow My laws\u201d would seem to mean \u201cobserve My commandments.\u201d But if that is stated explicitly, what is meant by \u201cfollow My laws\u201d? That one should labor in the study of Torah, and one should do so in order to \u201cobserve My commandments.\u201d As Deut. 5:1 says, \u201cHear, O Israel, the laws and rules that I proclaim to you this day! Study them and observe them faithfully!\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Follow My laws and faithfully observe My commandments. It is a commandment to \u201cfollow My laws\u201d by learning them, \u201ckeep My commandments\u201d (OJPS) by teaching them, \u201cand do them\u201d (OJPS).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If you follow My laws. If you do what you are supposed to do, then the clouds and the land and the trees that were created for your benefit will do what they are supposed to do (Bekhor Shor). If the Israelites will follow the laws whose reasons are not obvious, they will have no trouble following the sensible ones; it will be like asking one accustomed to carrying a heavy burden to carry a light one (Abarbanel). \u201cFollowing the laws\u201d means behaving in accordance with them; \u201ckeeping\u201d the commandments (OJPS) really means studying carefully how to \u201cdo them.\u201d Doing so fulfills God\u2019s intention that you be \u201cin His image, after His likeness\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:4<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
In their season. Rather, \u201cat their proper time\u201d\u2014at times when people do not go outdoors, as on Friday (and festival) nights. And the trees of the field their fruit. Under these conditions, not only the trees in the orchard but even the trees that happen to be growing in the field will eventually bear fruit.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will grant your rains in their season. More literally, \u201cthen\u201d I will grant your rains (OJPS). The vav that begins this word is an emphatic, as in \u201cNow the earth was unformed and void\u201d (Gen. 1:2). Remember that when the past tense verb is converted into a future, as it is here, the accent is going to shift to the end of the word, except in a very few cases. Its produce. What it \u201cbrings forth\u201d: \u201cSurely the mountains bring him forth food\u201d (Job 40:20). But we don\u2019t know whether the root of this word is \u05d1\u05d5\u05dc (as would seem from that verse) or \u05d9\u05d1\u05dc (as it might seem from ours).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I will grant your rains in their season. The promise starts with the rains, for when they come in their proper season, the air is clear and good, and the springs and the rivers are fresh. This is healthy for the body, and the fruits of the land too grow and are blessed in such conditions: The earth shall yield its produce and the trees of the field their fruit. If this happens, the people will not get sick; neither they nor their animals will be infertile or miscarry; and they will live their full life spans. When people\u2019s bodies are big and healthy, they can live out their days\u2014and this is the greatest of blessings. When the rains come in their season, God promises, \u201cthe sky shall respond to the earth\u201d (Hosea 2:23), and the earth will respond with the plants and animals that it produces, including the birds and the fish. For though the same word means \u201cland,\u201d here it includes the entire terrestrial globe, as in Gen. 1:1, which talks about the creation of \u201cheaven and earth.\u201d (See similarly Gen. 2:1.) Note further that in Ps. 148:7 the \u201csea monsters and ocean depths\u201d are \u201con earth.\u201d All of sublunar nature, then, is the \u201cproduce\u201d of the earth.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will grant your rains in their season. If the rains fall at the wrong time, they rot the crops (Hizkuni). Those who cleave to God find that divine providence cleaves to them in return, even with regard to material things like this. But those who do not enjoy the benefits of providence may also sometimes get these things simply through the general providence determined by the stars. Note that only material benefits are specified; the spiritual benefits come automatically to those who cleave to God (Gersonides). Even if rain is not falling in other countries because the stars have so determined it, the rains will fall in Israel\u2014they are your rains. Since these promises are directed at the nation as a whole, the spiritual benefits that come to each Jew individually could not be included here (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your threshing shall overtake the vintage. It will be so plentiful that you will be busy with it until it is time for the vintage; similarly you will be busy with the vintage until it is time to sow the next year\u2019s crops. You shall eat your fill of bread. Even a small amount of this wonderful food will be completely satisfying.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your threshing shall overtake the vintage. This clarifies \u201cwhen you gather in the results of your work from the field\u201d (Exod. 23:16)\u2014\u201cthe field\u201d includes the vineyard as well. Dwell securely in your land. Notice that having enough food is mentioned before dwelling securely; it is the essence of the statement. Famine causes people to leave their homes. As God told Cain, \u201cIf you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth\u201d (Gen. 4:12).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Your threshing shall overtake the vintage. If you observe My commandments and study My Torah without a break, then your blessing will in turn come to you without pause (Bekhor Shor). Dwell securely in your land. In 25:18 it was \u201cthat you may live upon the land in security\u201d; now it is \u201cyour land\u201d (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:6<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will grant peace in the land. After vv. 3\u20135 you might have thought, \u201cNow I have food and drink, but without peace I have nothing.\u201d But I will grant you peace too.\u2014We learn from this that peace is as valuable as everything else put together. That is why God is called \u201cmaker of peace and creator of all things.\u201d No sword shall cross your land. Having promised that He would grant them peace, it goes without saying that the land would see no war; here He promises that no army would cross their land even to get from one country to another.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will grant peace in the land. Among you. You shall lie down untroubled by anyone. Neither by wild animals nor by enemies\u2014rather, \u201cYou shall give chase to your enemies, and they shall fall before you\u201d (v. 7).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I will grant peace in the land. There will be peace among you, and you will not fight with each other. Or \u201cpeace\u201d may refer to giving the land \u201crespite from vicious beasts\u201d and making sure that no sword crosses the land. In fact, just the opposite will happen\u2014\u201cYou shall give chase to your enemies\u201d (v. 7), going forth to war against them, and they will flee. But according to the True interpretation, His granting of peace is connected to \u201cthe land\u201d of eternal life. This is a peace of the \u201cAll\u201d that is equivalent to everything. I will give the land respite from vicious beasts. R. Judah takes this as a straightforward statement that there will be no wild animals in the land, for He will get rid of them. When there is plenty of all good things and the cities are full of people, wild beasts do not venture into settled areas. But R. Simeon understands the verse simply to mean that He will \u201cgive respite\u201d from the beasts\u2014they will do no harm. He reads the verse as if it said, \u201cI will give the land respite from the viciousness of the beasts.\u201d And this is correct. For in an era when the commandments are being upheld, the land of Israel is like the entire world was at first, before the sin of Adam: there was no beast that would kill a human being. As the Sages say, \u201cIt is not the basilisk that kills; it is sin that kills.\u201d This is the world envisaged in \u201cThe cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw. A babe shall play over a viper\u2019s hole, and an infant pass his hand over an adder\u2019s den\u201d (Isa. 11:7\u20138). The animals only became meat eaters when Adam sinned and he was decreed to be \u201ca prey for their teeth\u201d (Ps. 124:6). Then (obviously) they were given each other as their natural prey. For attacking a human being even once only increases their wildness: \u201cShe raised up one of her cubs, he became a great beast; he learned to hunt prey\u2014he devoured men\u201d (Ezek. 19:3). At first, of course, all the animals were herbivores. \u201cTo all the animals on land, to all the birds of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, I give all the green plants for food\u201d (Gen. 1:30)\u2014\u201cand it was so.\u201d This was to have been their nature forever, but later (as I said) they learned to hunt for prey as a result of the sin that brought death into the world. After the Flood, when the descendants of Noah were permitted to slaughter animals for food, God told them, \u201cBut for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning\u201d (Gen. 9:5). But since He required no reckoning from animals for killing other animals, they continued to hunt for prey as they had before. When the land of Israel would become wholly peaceful, however, the animals too would cease hunting for prey (as they had been accustomed) and revert to the original nature with which they had been created. I have already noted this in my comment to Gen. 9:5. That is why we are told that, when the redeemer comes forth \u201cout of the stump of Jesse\u201d (Isa. 11:1), peace will return to the world, and animals will return to their original nature and cease to hunt for prey. Isaiah, of course, was talking about King Hezekiah, who asked the Holy One to make him the Messiah. But those of that era had not earned such a distinction. So the matter ended up being about the Messiah who is to come in future days.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will grant peace in the land. Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, and Judah will not be hostile to Ephraim (Abarbanel). I will give the land respite from vicious beasts. So that your children and animals will not be harmed (Gersonides). No sword shall cross your land. Even simply to cross it in peace\u2014as Pharaoh Neco, king of Egypt, was trying to do when he marched against the king of Assyria (2 Kings 23:29), yet he slew Josiah when he confronted him at Megiddo (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:7\u20138<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They shall fall before you by the sword. They will fall before you catch them, by each other\u2019s sword.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall give chase to your enemies. You shall chase them out of your territory (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Five of you shall give chase. Any five of you, even from the weakest among you, not the strongest. A hundred of you shall give chase to ten thousand. If five could give chase to a hundred, then shouldn\u2019t a hundred proportionately be able to give chase only to two thousand? But the strength of a few who observe the Torah is not even close to the strength of many who observe the Torah. Your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. They will literally fall before you, not (as in the ordinary way) because you have attacked them.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Five of you shall give chase to a hundred, and a hundred of you shall give chase to ten thousand. Quite amazing that so few could give chase to so many. These figures are not to be understood as precise predictions. As I have explained in my Sefer Moznayim, the powers of 10 are used as round numbers, and it is common to use them when exaggerating. \u201cBut you are worth ten thousand of us!\u201d (2 Sam. 18:3). Ordinarily one would multiply by just 10. Five giving chase to 100 has doubled this, multiplying by 20 rather than 10. In the second half of the phrase, one person gives chase to 100! Some explain that the increase is due to the fact that fighting together enhances their strength: \u201cHow could one have routed a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight\u201d (Deut. 32:30). But this kind of calculation is pointless. These numbers are figures of speech. Your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. They fell in v. 7 as well. For they will fall time after time, and not rise.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. He promised already in v. 7 that they would give chase to their enemies, and that they would fall before them. The repetition is a promise to give them enough courage and enough confidence that five of them would give chase to a hundred, and to put faintness into the enemies\u2019 hearts so that a hundred of them would flee before five. They might have thought that even though the enemy was fearful enough to flee, five of them would not be able to kill a hundred simply because there were too few of them. See also the comment of Ibn Ezra.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Five of you shall give chase to a hundred, and a hundred of you shall give chase to ten thousand. A hundred to ten thousand is a smaller ratio, but as few as five giving chase to a hundred is still more miraculous (Gersonides). Some understand this to mean, \u201ca hundred of those fives shall give chase to ten thousand,\u201d making the ratios directly proportional (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:9\u201311<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 After the blessings of peace, why does v. 10, \u201cYou shall eat old grain long stored,\u201d return to the blessings of agricultural prosperity that seemed complete in vv. 4\u20135?
\n\u2666 Isn\u2019t \u201cI will establish My abode\u201d (v. 11) incompatible with \u201cI will walk among you\u201d (as v. 12 really says; see OJPS)? An \u201cabode\u201d is something permanently fixed in one place; \u201cwalking\u201d means constant movement!
\n\u2666 God promises, \u201cI will not spurn you.\u201d But why would He spurn them?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will look with favor upon you. Rather, \u201cI will turn My attention to you.\u201d I will finish up My other business and then pay you your reward. It is like the parable in the Sifra about the king and the workers. And make you fertile. \u201cFruitful,\u201d as OJPS puts it\u2014both fertile and populous. And multiply you. Rather, \u201cand increase you,\u201d giving you a proud, upright posture. I will maintain My covenant with you. A new covenant\u2014not the original covenant, which you rejected, but a new, unbreakable covenant: \u201cI will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt\u201d (Jer. 31:31\u201332).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will look with favor upon you. To increase your wealth, as well as to make you fertile and multiply you with sons and daughters. I believe it is correct to say that \u201cmake you fertile\u201d means to prevent infertility; it is \u201cmultiply you\u201d that means to give you many children. I will maintain My covenant with you. Making your descendants \u201cas numerous as the stars of heaven\u201d (Gen. 22:17) and \u201cas the dust of the earth\u201d (Gen. 28:14).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I will \u2026 make you fertile. All of them would produce the fruit of the womb\u2014not a man or woman among them would be infertile. And multiply you. They would have many children, and not be bereaved of them; they would live out their days. In this way, they would grow into a numerous people.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will look with favor upon you. Literally, \u201cI will turn to you\u201d; paniti means I will turn My face, panim, and not My back to you (Bekhor Shor). I will maintain My covenant with you. Rather, I \u201cwill establish My covenant with you\u201d (OJPS) instead of with your ancestors, as it has been up to now (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You shall eat old grain long stored. Literally, \u201cold grain that has gotten older.\u201d The fruits of your land will keep so well that the grain left over from two years ago will still be as good to eat as that of last year. You shall have to clear out the old to make room for the new. The threshing floors will be full of the new grain, but the storehouses will still be so full of the old grain that you will have to move it somewhere else to clear out enough room to put the new grain into them.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
You shall have to clear out the old to make room for the new. The Hebrew does not say \u201chave to\u201d (see OJPS). What the phrase means is that when the new grain comes in, you will still have grain from two years ago that you can take out of the barns and sell. Just as in \u201cEvery third year you shall bring out the full tithe of your yield\u201d (Deut. 14:28, when it is given to the Levites), it does not say \u201cyou shall have to bring it out.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall eat old grain long stored. The amazing thing is that this will be true even though there are so many of them. Nonetheless, there will still remain plenty to eat for those who prefer to eat the old grain or even the \u201clong-stored\u201d grain (literally, \u201caged\u201d\u2014even older than the merely \u201cold\u201d). You shall have to clear out the old to make room for the new. Those who prefer to eat the new grain will have to haul old grain out of their homes. But one commentator says that they will \u201cbring out\u201d the old grain (see OJPS) to sow the fields with it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall eat old grain long stored. You will support yourselves without toil. \u201cLet abundant grain be in the land, to the tops of the mountains\u201d (Ps. 72:16). As the Sages said: When the Messiah comes, the land of Israel will sprout fresh bread and wool suits (Sforno). You shall have to clear out the old to make room for the new. You shall export it from your country to feed the rest of the world, without worrying that there will not be enough for you (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will establish My abode in your midst. The future Temple. It cannot refer to the \u201ctabernacle\u201d (OJPS), which has already been set up at this point. I will not spurn
\nyou. OJPS \u201cabhor\u201d is somewhat closer to the literal meaning, which implies physical rejection.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will establish My abode in your midst. Do not fear that you will ever suffer scarcity, for My Presence will reside among you.\u2014For God is not like a human being, who might eventually get fed up with staying in the same place all the time.\u2014Moreover, when you enter the land of your enemies, before you have a Temple with you, \u201cI will be ever present in your midst\u201d (v. 12). I shall be your God and you will be My people, for that is the whole reason that I \u201cbrought you out from the land of the Egyptians\u201d (v. 13).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I will not spurn you. Rashi understands this to refer to an almost physical rejection. But I don\u2019t understand the point of the Holy One\u2019s saying that if we observe the commandments and do His will, He will not be disgusted with us and reject us. Even in the case of our transgressing our covenant with Him and committing great impieties He said, \u201cI will not reject them or spurn them\u201d (v. 44). The prophet could one day nonetheless ask, \u201cHave You, then, rejected Judah? Have You spurned Zion?\u201d (Jer. 14:19). In fact, this matter is one of the great mysteries of the Torah. He said He would establish His Abode in our midst\u2014the Shekhinah, the Assembly of Israel\u2014and the Soul from which the Assembly of Israel would come forth would not spurn us as one disinfects a utensil in boiling water. Rather, our garments will always be fresh and white. For the positive aspect of \u201cspurning\u201d is \u201cbeing delivered\u201d (of a new birth), as Rashi explains in his comment to Job 21:10. Our verse literally says, \u201cMy soul shall not abhor you\u201d (OJPS), as in Amos 6:8, \u201cMy Lord GOD swears by His soul.\u201d When Jeremiah asks, \u201cHave you spurned Zion?\u201d\u2014\u201ca mother city in Israel\u201d (2 Sam. 20:19)\u2014he is asking, \u201cHave You cast her forth from before You so that all her children are dressed in filthy garments, stained with sin?\u201d
\nNow, as understood straightforwardly, all of these blessings, many as they are, are quite general\u2014rain, peace, plenty, fertility\u2014unlike the briefer blessings previously given, e.g., \u201cYou shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water. And I will remove sickness from your midst\u201d (Exod. 23:25). Having healthy food and no illness, we would be able to reproduce properly and live out our full life spans: \u201cNo woman in your land shall miscarry or be barren. I will let you enjoy the full count of your days\u201d (Exod. 23:26), \u201cfor I the LORD am your healer\u201d (Exod. 15:26). The point is that, though these blessings are indeed miracles, they are hidden miracles. As I have already explained in my comments to Gen. 17:1 and Exod. 6:3, the Torah is full of such hidden miracles, which apply even to single individuals who serve Him properly. The blessings in this section, by contrast, are general, applying to the people as a whole, and depending on all of us to be righteous. That is why they constantly refer to the land: \u201cthe land shall yield its produce \u2026 you shall dwell securely in your land \u2026 I will grant peace in the land \u2026 I will give the land respite from vicious beasts \u2026 no sword shall cross your land\u201d (vv. 4\u20136). Again, all of these blessings are miraculous. It is not natural for the rains always to come in season, for there to be continual peace, for enemies always to panic\u2014and certainly it is not natural for the exact opposite of those things to happen if we sow our fields in the seventh year. But even though these are hidden miracles, taking place as part of the apparent \u201cnatural\u201d course of events, their being constant and reliable throughout the entire land reveals their miraculous nature. For if a righteous person is granted a long and healthy life, the same thing might happen by chance to a few wicked people. But if an entire land and an entire people always have the proper amount of rain falling at the proper time (and so on), the mere fact that such a phenomenon is unknown anywhere else in the world would make clear that it is the Lord\u2019s doing: \u201cAnd all the peoples of the earth shall see that the LORD\u2019S name is proclaimed over you, and they shall stand in fear of you\u201d (Deut. 28:10).
\nThe curses and punishments, of course, are the exact opposite of the blessings, falling upon the land and upon the people as a whole, and their miraculous nature will be equally evident: \u201cLater generations will ask \u2026 all nations will ask, \u2018Why did the LORD do thus to this land? Wherefore that awful wrath?\u2019 \u201d (Deut. 29:21, 23). The answer will be evident as well: \u201cBecause they forsook the covenant that the LORD, God of their fathers, made with them when He freed them from the land of Egypt\u201d (Deut. 29:24). To put it plainly, when Israel is wholehearted and numerous, untrammeled nature has no effect whatsoever on them\u2014not on their land, not on the people as a whole, and not on any individual among them. They have no need of doctors or medicine, \u201cfor I the LORD am your healer\u201d (Exod. 15:26). In the time of the prophets, if righteous people should by some mischance commit a transgression and get ill, they would not call a physician, but a prophet. When King Hezekiah fell ill, he sent for Isaiah. By contrast, King Asa \u201csuffered from an acute foot ailment; but ill as he was, he still did not turn to the LORD but to physicians\u201d (2 Chron. 16:12). If the use of physicians had been common among them, there would have been no point in mentioning them in the verse, since his sin was merely that he did not turn to the Lord. But the verse speaks accusingly of his turning to physicians. After all, what need of physicians would those who do God\u2019s will have once He promised He would remove sickness from their midst? The physicians\u2019 role would be limited to advising them about proper diet. If things had remained as they should be, people would become ill only as a result of sin and would be healed as God wills. But since they became accustomed to medical treatment, God lets nature take its course. Note how the Sages interpret the rule that, if someone is injured in a fight, the assailant must pay for \u201chis cure\u201d (Exod. 21:19)\u2014not that the injured man is permitted to seek a cure, but that the physicians are permitted to cure him if he comes to them, as people were accustomed to do. So physicians should not refrain from treating their patients\u2014neither out of fear of committing malpractice (presuming they are qualified), nor out of a notion that healing is reserved for God. That is why the Exodus verse requires the assailant to pay for the cure. For the Torah does not base its rulings on miracles; it knows that \u201cthere will never cease to be needy ones in your land\u201d (Deut. 15:11). But when the Lord is pleased with a man\u2019s conduct, he need have no truck with physicians.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will establish My abode in your midst, and I will not spurn you. My abode will be in your midst as long as you act in a way that does not make Me spurn you, even if you have not bought in completely, that is, enough so that My providence will cleave to you (Gersonides). As Exod. 20:21 says, \u201cIn every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you.\u201d I will establish My abode in every place where you are (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will be ever present in your midst. Literally, \u201cI will walk among you\u201d (OJPS)\u2014I will stroll with you in the Garden of Eden as if I were one of you, and you will not tremble at My presence.\u2014Lest you think that in such circumstances they would no longer regard Him with reverent awe, the text adds: I will be your God.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I will be ever present in your midst. Literally, \u201cI will walk among you\u201d (OJPS). My Presence among you will be as manifest as that of a king walking about his camp making sure that his people have everything they need. This is the straightforward sense of the covenant, and it is the truth, and He certainly will do exactly this. The text says nothing explicit here about the continued existence of souls in the World of Souls\u2014the World to Come, after the resurrection of the dead\u2014because their continued existence in that realm is intrinsic to their nature, as I explained in my comment to 18:29. Those sinners who deserve it can have their continued existence cut short, but the others simply continue to exist in accordance with the way they were created. But the True interpretation of the blessings in this chapter is that they are blessings that involve the supernal heavens (see my comments to vv. 6 and 11). So \u201cI will walk among you\u201d alludes to that aspect of God that our Sages named the Shekhinah, a name they derived precisely from v. 11: \u201cI will establish My abode [mishkani] in your midst.\u201d They say that the Shekhinah \u201crests\u201d upon Israel, and even that the essence of the Shekhinah is its presence here in the sublunar world. The cognoscenti therefore understand that our passage alludes both to the Garden of Eden and to the World to Come. But these blessings are not to be entirely fulfilled until all Israel does the will of their Father, when heaven and earth achieve their perfect, original form. There are no blessings in the Torah as perfect as these, the words of the covenant, the conditions of the agreement between us and the Holy One. Know that Israel has never yet achieved these blessings in their fullness\u2014neither en masse nor even individuals among them\u2014for none of them fully deserved to do so. The Sages of blessed memory tell the following story about David: \u201cOnce, when Adino the Eznite wielded his spear against eight hundred and slew them [2 Sam. 23:8], David was upset. Thinking of the verse \u2018How could one have routed a thousand?\u2019 [Deut. 32:30], he felt bad that Adino had only been able to slay 800\u2013200 fewer than what might have seemed possible. An echo from heaven reminded him of 2 Kings 15:5, \u2018For David had done what was pleasing to the LORD and never turned throughout his life from all that He had commanded him, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.\u2019 \u201d You will thus find that our Sages apply the promises in our chapter to the messianic future, when a child will be able to thrust his hand into the mouth of a viper and extract the venom. The Holy One will indeed stroll among the righteous in that ultimate future, for it has not yet been fulfilled, but it will eventually be fulfilled for us, in the time of completion.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will be ever present in your midst. Literally, \u201cI will walk among you\u201d (OJPS)\u2014when you are settled, I will dwell among you; and when you go from place to place, I will go with you (Bekhor Shor). I will provide guidance to you, via My servants the prophets and via the High Priest (Gersonides). The divine flow will not descend only on a single place, as it did when the Tabernacle and the Temples stood (Sforno). You shall be My people. You alone (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:13\u201315<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why do the curses mention the commandments (v. 14) before the laws (v. 15), when in the blessings (v. 3) it was the other way around?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I the LORD am your God. You ought certainly to believe that I am capable of all this. For I brought you out from the land of the Egyptians and performed great miracles for you. The bars of your yoke. These \u201cbars\u201d are a kind of peg that goes through either end of the yoke, keeping it from slipping off the head of the ox and releasing the harness. As God told Jeremiah, \u201cMake for yourself thongs and bars of a yoke, and put them on your neck\u201d (Jer. 27:2).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The bars of your yoke. In Jer. 27:2, the \u201cthongs\u201d are the harness with which they attach the wooden yoke, which is called \u201cbars,\u201d motot, because it forces the bull\u2019s neck to \u201cbend,\u201d matteh, down. Erect. When the yoke is removed, he lifts up his head.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The bars of your yoke. The metaphor describes Israel as a bull plowing its master\u2019s land. The Israelites, of course, were enslaved in agricultural work as well as in building. As the verse tells us, \u201cthey made life bitter for them with harsh labor at mortar and bricks and with all sorts of tasks in the field\u201d (Exod. 1:14).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Made you walk erect. I had you leave Egypt \u201cwith a high hand\u201d (Exod. 14:8), and I can be relied on to do this again (Bekhor Shor). So that you would fear no one on the way (Kimhi).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:14<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But if you do not obey Me and do not observe all these commandments. One might think \u201cobedience\u201d refers to obeying the commandments. But since the verse goes on to mention this, we understand that obedience means laboring in the study of Torah, to understand the interpretations of the Sages. If one does not study Torah, one will not obey it, thus violating two commandments. Why then is studying Torah referred to as \u201cobeying Me\u201d? Because the verse does not refer to one who simply fails to obey, but to one who knows his Sovereign and deliberately disobeys. Such was Nimrod, \u201ca mighty hunter before the LORD\u201d (Gen. 10:9). This shows that he knew the Lord was God and deliberately rebelled against Him. So too were the inhabitants of Sodom, who were \u201cvery wicked sinners against the LORD\u201d (Gen. 13:13). They knew their Sovereign and deliberately rebelled against Him.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
But if you do not obey Me. Some people with mush for brains say that there are more curses than blessings in this chapter, but that is totally untrue. However, the blessings are general and the curses more specific, in order to frighten them. What I am saying will become clear to you if you look carefully into the matter. All these commandments. That are written here.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If you do not obey Me and do not observe all these commandments. This is one way in which the Torah refers to idolatry (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:15<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If you reject My laws. Rejecting those who do observe them. And spurn My rules. Treating the Sages with enmity. You do not observe. You prevent others from observing. All My commandments. They are My commandments\u2014but you deny that I commanded them. And you break My covenant. Denying the basic principle of religion. We see that vv. 14\u201315 enumerate seven different transgressions, each dragging the next in its wake: (1) not learning, (2) not observing, (3) spurning those who observe, (4) treating the Sages with enmity, (5) preventing others from observing, (6) denying the commandments, and finally (7) denying the existence of God.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And you break My covenant. The Hebrew word translated \u201cand you break\u201d is actually an infinitive verb, albeit a strange one. The infinitive can take a number of varying forms.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
If you reject My laws and spurn My rules. Since the \u201claws\u201d (as opposed to the \u201crules\u201d) are commandments whose purpose is not obvious to the masses, there are fools who do indeed reject them: \u201cWhat\u2019s so important to God about my not wearing this beautiful garment because it is embroidered with fine linen and blue wool?\u201d \u201cWhat possible good can it do us to burn a red cow and sprinkle its ashes on ourselves?\u201d But the logical basis of the \u201crules\u201d for ordering society is obvious. Everyone is happy with them and agrees that such rules are needed. You will find no settlement among any people or nation that does not have such a set of rules. No one could \u201cspurn\u201d such sensible rules as Exod. 21:12, \u201cHe who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death\u201d; Exod. 21:22, which fines a man who accidentally causes a woman to miscarry; or the rules adjudicating cases like that of the goring ox, creating a public nuisance, the responsibilities of someone who has another\u2019s goods in his possession, and the like. But the wicked are disgusted with our enforcing the \u201crules\u201d against (e.g.) illicit sexual relations, violating the Sabbath, consulting ghosts and the like, which are a heavy burden on them. Some people, therefore, do \u201cspurn My rules\u201d not because the rules are irrational but because they do not wish to observe them. You break My covenant. Breaking the covenant means not merely spurning the rules, but living without Torah entirely, permitting themselves all kinds of sexual immorality and publicly indulging all of their appetites. But according to the True interpretation, breaking the covenant implies its cancellation, yielding the opposite of \u201cI will grant peace in the land\u201d (v. 6). This is what is meant by Jer. 31:32, \u201ca covenant which they broke, though I espoused them.\u201d They have canceled My covenant of peace, though I Myself espoused them directly.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If you reject My laws. Even just one of them, if it is a deliberate rejection (Gersonides). Spurn My rules. \u201cIf your soul abhor\u201d them (OJPS)\u2014like a man deliberately making himself vomit. For one could not naturally abhor such obvious and sensible rules (Sforno). You break My covenant. \u201cWhen you say, \u2018We will be like the nations\u2019 \u201d (Ezek. 20:32)\u2014as that verse also says, \u201cwhat you have in mind shall never come to pass\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will wreak misery upon you. More literally, I will \u201cappoint\u201d it (OJPS). Consumption. As the root of the Hebrew word implies, this is a disease that emaciates the body. The sufferer\u2019s face has a frown; he resembles someone who had been puffed up with swelling, after the swelling has subsided. Fever. Again, the Hebrew root tells us that this is a condition that enflames the body and heats it to burning: \u201cFor a fire has flared in My wrath\u201d (Deut. 32:22). Which cause the eyes to pine. The eyes watch desperately for the condition to ease and for the body to heal\u2014but it will never heal. The \u201cpining of the eyes\u201d is an idiom for an unsatisfied craving, a hope that is never fulfilled. And the body to languish. Not the \u201cbody\u201d but the \u201csoul\u201d (OJPS). Eventually the spirits of his family languish, when he dies. You shall sow your seed to no purpose. You shall sow, but it will not sprout, and even if it does sprout, your enemies shall eat it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will wreak misery upon you. I will \u201cappoint\u201d it over you (OJPS)\u2014as a man who is in command of another man can work his will with him. But OJPS \u201cterror\u201d is a better translation than \u201cmisery,\u201d and \u201cpanic\u201d would be even better: You will panic and have no idea what you are doing. Some think the word has a connotation of suddenness. Consumption and fever. There is no need for a dash here; the particle et, which the translations interpret as the direct object marker, really means \u201cwith\u201d here, as it often does: \u201cI will wreak panic upon you with consumption and fever.\u201d The Hebrew text identifies them as \u201cthe\u201d consumption and \u201cthe\u201d fever, indicating that the Hebrew words were the names of known diseases. Many people think they were crop diseases, like blight and mildew, since the verse goes on to say that \u201cyou shall sow your seed to no purpose.\u201d But this is a stretch; the reference is to human diseases that would come upon them. Then, when raiders came to the villages looking for plunder, they could eat the crop, for no one would be strong enough to come out and drive them away. Which cause the eyes to pine. To \u201cfail\u201d (OJPS), rather. The sick people\u2019s eyes will grow dim and their spirits will languish. Some would go so far as to say that the eyes represent the body, parallel to the \u201cspirits\u201d that languish. But there is no need for this.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I in turn will do this to you. According to the True interpretation, it is as if the words were reversed to read \u201cI, \u2018this,\u2019 will in turn do the following to you.\u201d The whole rest of this passage invokes the pronoun ani, \u201cI,\u201d over and over again, in vv. 24 (twice), 28, 32, and 41. Sefer ha-Bahir takes this to mean, \u201cIt is not enough for Me to judge you\u2014\u2018I\u2019 Myself must personally discipline you.\u201d The principle here is that it is the Holy One who is making this covenant, which is why this passage keeps repeating that He will discipline the Israelites \u201csevenfold for your sins\u201d (vv. 18, 21, 24, 28). The oaths here are covenant oaths, for God is speaking here in His own voice. What He will \u201cdo,\u201d of course, is to \u201csmite\u201d them (vv. 21, 24) and \u201cdiscipline\u201d them (vv. 18, 28). As v. 46 makes clear, He Himself, through His great Name, gave this covenant. But you will notice that our chapter addresses the Israelites with the plural \u201cyou,\u201d while the comparable chapter in Deuteronomy, ch. 28, addresses them as individuals, using (in Hebrew) the singular \u201cyou\u201d (\u201cthou\u201d in the more archaic but here more useful translation of OJPS). The Sages observed that our chapter is spoken directly in the voice of the Holy One, while Deuteronomy 28 is Moses\u2019 retelling in his own voice, as God\u2019s representative to the Israelites.
\nYou must know and understand that everything in this chapter actually took place during the First Temple period and its aftermath, including both the exile to Babylonia and the redemption from there, for that is when they worshiped idols and did all these evil things. You will see it all laid out in the book of Jeremiah, just as 2 Chron. 36:20\u201321 explains: \u201cThose who survived the sword he exiled to Babylon, and they became his and his sons\u2019 servants till the rise of the Persian kingdom, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, until the land paid back its sabbaths; as long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath, till seventy years were completed.\u201d This is what He threatened, and this is what happened. It is therefore quite clear that it is this exile that our chapter is talking about. Notice further that in v. 42 God promises to \u201cremember\u201d the Patriarchs and the land, but not to forgive their sins, to go back to loving them as He had previously, or to gather their dispersed remnants back in the land. For when they returned from Babylonia, only Judah, Benjamin, some Levites, and a very few members of other tribes came back. Those who did return remained in impoverished slavery to the kings of Persia. Again, note that He says they will \u201cconfess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers\u201d (v. 40), but not that they will completely repent of them. In fact, we do find people in Second Temple times confessing in exactly this fashion; see (e.g.) Neh. 1:6\u20137; Neh. 9:34, and Dan. 9:4\u201315. They had all learned from the Torah that they must make confession of their iniquity and that of their fathers. It is clear, then, that our chapter refers to the exile to Babylonia and the redemption from there.
\nThe covenant in Deuteronomy 28, however, alludes to the exile that we are in currently, and to our redemption from it. First, in that chapter no end to the exile is prophesied, and redemption is not promised\u2014instead, it is made contingent on repentance. The sins of idolatry mentioned in our chapter (v. 30) are not mentioned in Deuteronomy 28 at all. That chapter says simply, \u201cIf you do not obey the LORD your God to observe faithfully all His commandments and laws which I enjoin upon you this day, all these curses shall come upon you and take effect\u201d (Deut. 28:15). And that is exactly what happened in the Second Temple period, when they did not faithfully observe \u201call His commandments.\u201d That is why the Sages asked, \u201cWhy was the First Temple destroyed? Because of idolatry. But the Second Temple, when we know for certain that they were occupied with Torah and doing good deeds\u2014why was it destroyed? Because of the gratuitous hatred among them.\u201d Deuteronomy 28 says nothing about the Temple or the \u201cpleasing odors\u201d of the sacrifices (for we know that fire never came down from heaven to consume the offerings in Second Temple times). The threat in Deut. 28:49 to \u201cbring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, which will swoop down like the eagle\u2014a nation whose language you do not understand\u201d clearly refers to Rome. Not so our chapter, for Assyria and Babylonia are relatively close to Israel and were always fighting with the Israelites; the Israelites in fact were related to those nations; and of course they knew the language: \u201cSpeak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it\u201d (2 Kings 18:26). Again, the threat to \u201cscatter you among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other\u201d (Deut. 28:64) quite clearly refers to the exile that we are in now. There too, only the children were to be exiled (Deut. 28:32, 41), while the parents would remain; but in the exile of our chapter the entire people would participate. The Romans, of course, when they ruled Palestine, took the people\u2019s sons and daughters whenever they wanted, seizing both our money and our bodies at their whim. This is all recorded in the history books. On the other hand, the redemption promised there is a complete one: \u201cWhen all these things befall you \u2026 and you return to the LORD your God \u2026 the LORD your God will bring you to the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will make you more prosperous and more numerous than your fathers\u201d (Deut. 30:1, 2, 5). This is not a promise to one-sixth of the people, but to all 12 tribes. Moreover, the curses will then rebound against those who exiled us: \u201cThe LORD your God will inflict all those curses upon the enemies and foes who persecuted you\u201d (Deut. 30:7), \u201cthe enemies and the foes\u201d being those two nations who are always pursuing us. The promise of this future redemption outdoes anything in the visions of Daniel. In fact, even in our chapter, v. 32 gives us the good news that, in both exiles, our land will simply not accept our enemies. This is a tremendously reassuring promise to us. For you will not find anywhere in the inhabited earth a land so good and broad, formerly inhabited, that is now as ruined as ours. Ever since we left it, it has not accepted any other people as its permanent residents, no matter how they try (and they all do).
\nFurthermore, the covenant of this chapter was made by the Holy One, and His great Name was with us in the First Temple. But that of Deuteronomy 28 was made by Moses, hinting at the complete withdrawal of the Shekhinah. For in the Second Temple they had only \u201cthe glory of His name.\u201d The extra \u05d4 we add to the verb \u201cglorify\u201d in Hag. 1:8 when we read it aloud is symbolic of the Shekhinah\u2019s replacement by this name in the Second Temple. (B. Yoma 21b reads it as a symbol of the five things that were missing in the Second Temple.)<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I in turn will do this to you. The curses match the blessings of the previous passage (Bekhor Shor). Measure for measure (Hizkuni). It is not correct to say, as Nahmanides does, that this passage refers only to the destruction of the First Temple and Deuteronomy 28 to the destruction of the Second Temple. Rather, as I prove in my Deuteronomy discussion, both chapters refer to both exiles (Abarbanel). The covenant will be broken as far as I am concerned, too (Sforno). Consumption and fever. Rather, \u201cchills and fever\u201d (Abarbanel). Your enemies shall eat it. As Judg. 6:3 tells us, exactly this happened in the time of the judges: \u201cAfter the Israelites had done their sowing, Midian, Amalek, and the Kedemites would come up and raid them\u201d (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:17\u201318<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 What explains the fourfold threat (vv. 18, 21, 24, and 28) to punish the Israelites \u201csevenfold for your sins\u201d?
\n\u2666 If these warnings depict different stages, why are the punishments so similar?
\n\u2666 If, as we know, it is His way to punish us less than we deserve, what is the meaning of punishing \u201csevenfold\u201d?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will set My face against you. The word panai, \u201cMy face,\u201d can also be read as p\u2019nai, \u201cMy free time.\u201d I will turn aside from My own free time, when I would be dealing with My own affairs, to wreak misery upon you.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will set My face against you. Idiomatically, this means \u201cMy anger.\u201d Compare 1 Sam. 1:18, where \u201cSo the woman \u2026 was no longer upset\u201d is literally \u201cShe had her face no longer.\u201d When God \u201csets His face\u201d against them, then even those who are not sick and go out to fight will be routed by your enemies, and will sometimes even flee though none pursues, like the Aramean army in 2 Kings 7.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will set My face against you. Sometimes a man turns a friendly face to his fellow and sometimes an angry face; this will be an angry one (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And if, for all that. If, during that whole series of punishments, you do not obey Me. I will go on to discipline you. With further torments. Sevenfold for your sins. Seven more punishments, for the seven sins listed in vv. 14\u201315.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Sevenfold for your sins. That is, manyfold. They will be struck with many blows for their sins. \u201cSeven\u201d is the biblical way of indicating \u201cmany\u201d: \u201cSeven times the righteous man falls and gets up\u201d (Prov. 24:16); \u201cAnd the light of the moon shall become like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall become sevenfold\u201d (Isa. 30:26); \u201cIn that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, \u2018We will eat our own food and wear our own clothes; only let us be called by your name\u2014Take away our disgrace!\u2019 \u201d (Isa. 4:1).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And if, for all that. Literally, all \u201cthese things\u201d (OJPS), the blows that have been struck against you so far. Sevenfold for your sins. As the perfect number, seven represents completeness and is thus used to indicate \u201ca plethora\u201d: \u201cSeven times the righteous man falls and gets up\u201d (Prov. 24:16); \u201cThe barren woman bears seven\u201d (1 Sam. 2:5). Some say it literally means seven punishments, but the explanation I have given is the correct one. If you count the punishments in vv. 19\u201320, you get only six. You cannot get to seven until you hit the wild beasts of v. 22\u2014but that does not come until after the next \u201csevenfold\u201d threat, in v. 21.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Sevenfold for your sins. For the \u201cseventh\u201d year sabbatical they have failed to observe (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:19\u201322<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the sevenfold punishment described once (in v. 21) as \u201caccording to your sins\u201d (see OJPS) and the other three times as actually being al, \u201cover and above,\u201d the sins?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will break your proud glory. The Temple. Ezekiel says it plainly: \u201cI am going to desecrate My Sanctuary, your pride and glory\u201d (Ezek. 24:21). I will make your skies like iron and your earth like copper. This is a worse threat than the one Moses makes in Deuteronomy: \u201cThe skies above your head shall be copper and the earth under you iron\u201d (Deut. 28:23). For Moses\u2019 skies would still sweat a bit of moisture, as copper does, and his earth would not (as iron does not), keeping the stored fruits dry. But here the skies, like iron, will not give a drop of moisture, creating drought in the world; yet the earth will sweat, as does copper, rotting the fruits.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
I will break your proud glory. Their \u201cstaff of bread\u201d (v. 26). \u201cOnly this was the sin of your sister Sodom: pride! She and her daughters had plenty of bread \u2026\u201d (Ezek. 16:49). A midrash: \u201cYour proud glory\u201d is the Temple: \u201cI am going to desecrate My Sanctuary, your pride and glory\u201d (Ezek. 24:21). But the straightforward sense is what I explained, as is proven by the end of the verse: I will make your skies like iron and so forth.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will break your proud glory. Your satiety: \u201cSo Jeshurun grew fat and kicked\u2014you grew fat and gross and coarse\u201d (Deut. 32:15). When their haughty pride is broken, they will fall and be brought down.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will break your proud glory. Since the Temple is not mentioned here, as it is in Ezekiel, I think this is to be taken literally, as referring to their haughty pride (Abarbanel). Destroying the temple at Shiloh. Each of the threats in this chapter can be identified with an actual historical event (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your strength shall be spent to no purpose. If a man avoids toil\u2014doesn\u2019t plow, doesn\u2019t sow, doesn\u2019t weed, doesn\u2019t hoe\u2014then when at harvest time blight strikes, it makes no difference to him. But for someone who does toil\u2014plowing, sowing, weeding, and hoeing\u2014then when blight strikes, it sets his teeth on edge. Your land shall not yield its produce. Not even the amount of seed that you originally sowed. \u201cYield\u201d serves as verb both for what precedes it and for what follows it; the land shall not yield, nor shall the trees. They shall be smitten by the land itself, lest they put forth fruit when the season for that arrives. Nor shall the trees of the land yield their fruit. If the tree does bring forth fruit, it will drop its fruits on the ground. The trees are cursed in two different ways. You therefore have in vv. 19\u201320 seven punishments, matching the seven sins.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Your strength shall be spent to no purpose. For the land \u201cshall no longer give its strength to you\u201d (Gen. 4:12).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Your strength shall be spent to no purpose. The strength that you spent wearily working the land.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If you remain hostile toward Me. Our Sages take the word keri from its relationship with the verb kara, \u201cto happen, occur\u201d: \u201cIf you walk [compare OJPS] occasionally with Me\u201d\u2014if you follow the commandments every now and again. Menahem ibn Saruq understands it to refer to restraint: \u201cVisit your neighbor sparingly\u201d (Prov. 25:17); \u201cA knowledgeable man is sparing with his words\u201d (Prov. 17:27). This is close to the translation of Onkelos: \u201cif you hardly walk with Me,\u201d meaning not only \u201chardly ever,\u201d but pointing also to the hardening of their hearts: \u201cThey restrain themselves from growing close to Me.\u201d Sevenfold for your sins. Seven more punishments, as follows, for the seven sins already mentioned.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
And if you remain hostile toward Me. Menahem\u2019s explanation is nonsense. \u201cSparingly\u201d in Prov. 25:17 comes from the verb yakar, \u201cto be precious, rare.\u201d Our noun is indeed related to the verb kara, \u201cto happen.\u201d Here is the correct explanation. \u201cIf you walk [see OJPS] with Me only by chance\u201d and not regularly\u2014like a man who cannot be relied on to follow the ways of his Creator. It is like Balaam saying to Balak, \u201cStay here beside your offerings, while I seek to happen upon [the Lord] yonder\u201d (Num. 23:15).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And if you remain hostile toward Me. Many interpreters agree that the word means \u201chostile\u201d or \u201ccontrary\u201d (OJPS), but there is no example of this meaning or indeed of our specific word anywhere else in the Bible outside our chapter. Others relate it to the verb that means \u201cto happen,\u201d as when the Philistines put the Ark on a wagon and turn the cows loose to see where it will go: \u201cIf it goes up the road to Beth-shemesh, to His own territory, it was He who has inflicted this great harm on us. But if not, we shall know that it was not His hand that struck us; it just happened to us by chance\u201d (1 Sam. 6:9). According to either interpretation, note that in Hebrew the word is a noun, not an adjective, and the preposition \u201cwith,\u201d which is obviously called for, is missing. So one must assume that either the preposition or some other noun is understood: \u201cIf you walk with hostility toward Me\u201d or \u201cIf you retain a hostile attitude toward Me.\u201d I have shown you many other places in the Bible where a missing word is understood in this fashion. Sevenfold for your sins. Note that this time it literally says \u201caccording to your sins\u201d (OJPS). They will not be punished more than they deserve. Even in vv. 18, 24, and 28, where the text might be understood to say that they will be punished \u201csevenfold above your sins,\u201d the translations are correct in interpreting this word as simply meaning \u201cfor\u201d your sins.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If you remain hostile toward Me. Rather, \u201cif you act with Me as if by chance,\u201d that is, thinking that the suffering I bring upon you is coincidental and not retribution for your transgressions (Kimhi). Five different judgments are threatened here\u2014sickness, hunger, war, plague, and exile\u2014and you will find that all five are described in Amos 4 (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will loose wild beasts against you. \u201cI will send\u201d (OJPS) is closer to the meaning of the Hebrew: \u201cI will stir them up against you.\u201d They shall bereave you of your children. Your underage children. From this verse I would know only that the wild animals will do so, as is their nature. But Deut. 32:24 tells us that even the \u201cteeth\u201d of domestic animals will be turned loose against them. So that is two punishments. That same verse adds the phrase \u201cvenomous creepers in dust,\u201d so we know that just as the \u201cvenomous creepers\u201d kill with their bite, so will these animals. There were indeed years in the land of Israel when both the domestic ass and the wild ass have killed with their bite. Wipe out your cattle. Entirely, since they are outside. Decimate you. But not wipe you out entirely, since you will be inside your homes. Your roads shall be deserted. The highways and the byways alike. So that is seven punishments: (1) the teeth of the domestic beasts and (2) of the wild animals, (3) \u201cvenomous creepers in dust,\u201d (4) bereavement, (5) wiping out the cattle, (6) decimation, and (7) desertion of the roads.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will loose wild beasts against you. This is a common verb in an uncommon conjugation; see also Exod. 8:17, \u201cI will let loose swarms of insects against you.\u201d They shall bereave you by killing your children and \u2026 shall decimate you by killing the grown-ups. Your roads shall be deserted. There will not be a single road where people can feel secure that the wild animals will not attack.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will loose wild beasts against you. Nebuchadnezzar. As Jer. 4:7 has it, \u201cThe lion has come up from his thicket: The destroyer of nations has set out, has departed from his place, to make your land a desolation\u201d (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:23\u201326<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:23<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If these things fail to discipline you for Me. If you \u201cwill not be corrected unto Me\u201d (OJPS)\u2014to repent and return to Me.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
These things. The things described in v. 22.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will bring a sword against you. This is an idiom in Biblical Hebrew meaning \u201cwar with enemy soldiers.\u201d To wreak vengeance for the covenant. Literally, \u201cto avenge covenant-vengeance.\u201d There is a kind of vengeance that is out of the ordinary, beyond normal conventions, for example, when Zedekiah\u2019s eyes were put out by the Babylonians. Another reading: \u201cCovenant-vengeance\u201d is My vengeance for your violating your covenant with Me. If you withdraw into your cities. If you \u201cgather\u201d in your cities (see OJPS) because the enemy is besieging you. I will send pestilence among you, and by means of the pestilence you shall be delivered into enemy hands. Since corpses cannot be left overnight in Jerusalem, when they would bring the corpses out of the city to bury them, they would fall into the hands of the besiegers.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
To wreak vengeance for the covenant. Which you have transgressed; see v. 15.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Vengeance for the covenant. This is the reason I said, in my comment to 25:1, that this section is referring to the covenant they accepted when they said, \u201cAll that the LORD has spoken we will faithfully do!\u201d (Exod. 24:7). Then the covenant was made and Moses told them all of this section, chs. 25\u201327. If you withdraw into your cities. Fleeing from the \u201csword.\u201d Then I will send so much pestilence and famine among you that you shall wish to be delivered into enemy hands.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will bring a sword against you. If you fail to bring a knife to fulfill the covenant of circumcision, I will bring a sword of war against you (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When I break your staff of bread. It is your \u201cstaff\u201d in the sense that you lean upon it: \u201cAlas, the strong rod is broken, the lordly staff!\u201d (Jer. 48:17). I will cut off every source of food that you have \u201cwhen I loose the deadly arrows of famine \u2026 and break your staff of bread\u201d (Ezek. 5:16). Ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven. Because of the lack of wood for fuel. They shall dole out your bread by weight. For the grain will rot and the loaves made from it will crumble into bits in the oven. They will sit and weigh out the bits in order to distribute them among you. Though you eat, you shall not be satisfied. It is the opposite of v. 5\u2014no matter how much you eat, you shall not be satisfied. So here are seven more punishments: (1) the sword, (2) the siege, (3) the pestilence, (4) breaking the staff of bread, (5) a shortage of wood, (6) crumbly bread, and (7) eating without satisfaction. Being \u201cdelivered\u201d (v. 25) is not another punishment; that is \u201cthe sword.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Ten women. \u201cTen\u201d meaning \u201cmany.\u201d See Job 19:3, \u201cThese ten times you have reproached me,\u201d which NJPS translates as \u201cTime and again you humiliate me.\u201d In a single oven. For one woman will not be able to fill an oven with bread. They shall dole out your bread by weight. They will bring it to the oven by weight and dole it out that way, for they will have to survive on \u201cmeager bread and scant water\u201d (Isa. 30:20). God says this plainly to Ezekiel: \u201cO mortal, I am going to break the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and they shall eat bread by weight, in anxiety, and drink water by measure, in horror\u201d (Ezek. 4:16). Here too God threatens that when he \u201cbreaks their staff of bread,\u201d they will have to bake and eat \u201cby weight.\u201d Though you eat, you shall not be satisfied. For they will be eating bread by weight\u2014and a scanty weight, at that.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When I break your staff of bread. \u201cBreaking\u201d the \u201cstaff\u201d of bread is of course a metaphor; compare Isa. 3:1, \u201cThe Sovereign LORD of Hosts will remove from Jerusalem and from Judah prop and stay, every prop of food and every prop of water.\u201d For it is bread that sustains life, \u201cprops it up.\u201d Ten women. See my comment to v. 8. The Jewish custom was that every family would bake an oven full of bread for each week, just as was done with the showbread (see 24:5\u20138). They shall dole out your bread by weight. Since there will be so little of it. Though you eat, you shall not be satisfied. A hungry man can be filled by eating just a little. But you shall not be satisfied no matter how much you eat.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven. This limits the amount each of them is able to bake (Gersonides). They shall dole out your bread by weight. So that none of it is lost (Bekhor Shor). Rather than by the loaf, for the bread will be so full of bran that it simply crumbles (Gersonides). Bread will be so expensive, they will make sure they get all of their own bread back (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:27\u201332<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why the redundancy of \u201cI will lay your cities in ruin\u201d (v. 31), \u201cI will make the land desolate\u201d (v. 32), and \u201cYour land shall become a desolation and your cities a ruin\u201d (v. 33)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:27<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If, despite this. Despite this most recent blow.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:29<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
You shall eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. No famine can be fiercer than this.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
You shall eat the flesh of your sons. Some understand this verse to refer to well-born people who marry off their children to unsuitable families in return for money (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Your cult places. Rather, \u201cyour high places\u201d (OJPS), your towers and castles. Your incense stands. \u201cYour sun-pillars\u201d (OJPS). This was some sort of idol that they would set up on the roofs. Because they stood in the sun, they were called \u201csun-pillars.\u201d I will heap your carcasses upon your lifeless fetishes. This too actually happened. They were bloated with hunger, yet they would take out their idols, hold them in their arms, and kiss them. Then their bellies would split and they would fall dead on top of the idols. I will spurn you. This implies the withdrawal of the Shekhinah.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
I will heap your carcasses upon your lifeless fetishes. Because you will be killed in your cult places. \u201cAssuredly, a time is coming\u2014declares the LORD\u2014when men shall no longer speak of Topheth or the Valley of Ben-hinnom, but of the Valley of Slaughter; and they shall bury in Topheth until no room is left\u201d (Jer. 7:32).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will destroy your cult places. You will have nowhere to go to pray for deliverance from the famine, for I will destroy the \u201chigh places\u201d (OJPS) where you offer sacrifice. Incense stands. More literally, \u201cyour sun-pillars\u201d (OJPS), buildings made for worshiping the sun. Your carcasses. Your own bodies: \u201cWhile you were left lying unburied, like loathsome carrion, like a trampled corpse\u201d (Isa. 14:19). Fetishes. The Hebrew word is a dysphemism, being derived from the word for \u201cdung\u201d (see 1 Kings 14:10). What the verse is saying is, \u201cWhen you assemble for idolatrous worship, you will be killed, and your enemies will destroy your turd-idols, and I will not save you.\u201d I will spurn you. The Shekhinah will turn aside from you.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will destroy your cult places. If they are unwilling to give up idolatry, they will be forced to do so (Gersonides). I will heap your carcasses upon your lifeless fetishes. This will demonstrate that the fetishes have no power to save them (Gersonides). Perhaps it should be read as \u201con\u201d your fetishes, that is, on account of them. Notice that they give their lives for their fetishes, but not (v. 29) for their own children (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will lay your cities in ruin. This would seem to mean they would be empty of people. But that does not occur until v. 32, \u201cI will make the land desolate.\u201d So our phrase must mean that the cities have no one passing through from outside. And make your sanctuaries desolate. Desolate of sacrifices? But the verse goes on to say, I will not savor your pleasing odors, which tells us that there would be sacrifices. So they must be \u201cdesolate\u201d of the caravans of Israelites who would devotedly troop through them on a regular basis. Again, you have another seven punishments: (1) eating the flesh of your sons and daughters (v. 29), (2) destruction of the castle towers, (3) heaping the carcasses and so on, (4) the withdrawal of the Shekhinah, (5) laying the cities \u201cin ruin,\u201d (6) making the sanctuaries desolate of pilgrims, and (7) \u201cI will not savor your pleasing odors.\u201d Cutting down the sun-pillars is not a punishment. It is merely the result of cutting down the castles on whose roofs they stood.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will lay your cities in ruin and make your sanctuaries desolate. Once the Shekhinah turns aside from you, they are your sanctuaries, not Mine. I will not savor your pleasing odors. Of course, the Presence of God fills all of heaven and earth. But as when \u201cThe LORD smelled the pleasing odor\u201d of Noah\u2019s offerings (Gen. 8:21), the metaphor refers to accepting a sacrifice. It is as much as to say, \u201cI will no longer accept burnt offerings from you.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will lay your cities in ruin. First Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh were exiled, and their cities on the east side of the Jordan laid in ruin; then Zebulun and Naphtali on the west; then Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom; then the cities of Judah; and finally Jerusalem. Only then was the sanctuary made desolate (Abarbanel). And make your sanctuaries desolate. The First and Second Temples (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will make the land desolate. This is actually good for Israel, in that their enemies would find no comfort in their land and it would be desolated of its new inhabitants as well. Appalled. This is a different conjugation of the same verb used at the beginning of the verse. Your enemies too will be \u201cdesolated.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled by it. That is, when they come to settle in it. \u201cEveryone who passes by it will be appalled and will hiss over all its wounds\u201d (Jer. 19:8).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will make the land desolate. After the destruction of the cities and the sanctuaries, what remains is \u201cthe land\u201d\u2014the entire land of Israel. Your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled by it. The desolation will be so great that, even while they reside there, your enemies will be appalled by it. It will be the opposite of when Jerusalem was called \u201cJoy of All the Earth\u201d (Lam. 2:15).<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I will make the land desolate, so that your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled by it. This is good news; the land will refuse to accept our enemies. See the end of my comment to v. 16.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:33\u201335<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
And you I will scatter among the nations. This, on the other hand, is difficult indeed. For when the inhabitants of a country are exiled together to a single place, they see each other and can comfort each other. But Israel was scattered among the nations \u201cas with a winnowing fork\u201d (Jer. 15:7). Think of a man who is scattering barley with a sieve\u2014not a single grain falls next to its mate. I will unsheath the sword against you. Literally, \u201cI will empty the sword against you.\u201d Drawing a sword \u201cempties\u201d the scabbard it was in. Metaphorically, it can be read as follows: Once the sword is emptied from the scabbard, it will not soon return. Think of a man emptying out a pail of water\u2014you will never get the water back in the pail. Your land shall become a desolation. You will not return to it quickly, which will leave your cities seeming a ruin to you. For when a man is exiled from his home, his vineyard, and his city but knows that he will eventually return, he does not see them as being in ruins. So teaches the Sifra.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will unsheath the sword against you. It is not enough that I scatter you among the nations; I will also unsheathe the sword from its scabbard. Your land shall become a desolation. This sentence really belongs with v. 34.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
And you I will scatter among the nations. How? By unsheathing the sword against you (Hizkuni). This refers to those slain at Bethar, which took place just a few years after the destruction of the Second Temple (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:34<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Then shall the land make up for its sabbath years. More precisely, the land will \u201cappease\u201d the anger of God about its sabbatical years. Throughout the time that it is desolate. \u201cThroughout the time of its being desolated.\u201d Grammatically, this is the Hophal infinitive construct of \u05e9\u05de\u05dd. Then shall the land rest and make up for its sabbath years. Again, it means that the land will rest and \u201ccause the king to be appeased.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Then shall the land make up for its sabbath years. It shall be \u201cmade whole\u201d for them. The Hebrew verb implies some form of completion: \u201cUntil, like a hireling, he finishes out his day\u201d (Job 14:6); \u201cSpeak tenderly to Jerusalem, and declare to her that her term of service is over, that her iniquity is expiated\u201d (Isa. 40:2). Its \u201csabbath years\u201d include both the sabbatical years and the jubilee years; see my comment to 2 Chron. 36:21, \u201cas long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath, till seventy years were completed.\u201d Throughout the time that it is desolate. Rather, \u201cof its desolation.\u201d The word is a noun. Noun patterns are much more variable than those of verbs. And you are in the land of your enemies. When the land is \u201cdesolate\u201d of you, it will find rest and make whole the full complement of its sabbatical years.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Then shall the land make up for its sabbath years. Being worked neither by you nor by others (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:35<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The rest that it did not observe. The 70 years of the Babylonian exile correspond to the 70 sabbatical and jubilee years that fell during the 436 years when Israel was in their land provoking God. There were 390 sinful years during the period from the time they entered the land until the Ten Tribes were exiled. Then the Judahites transgressed for another 40 years during the period before Jerusalem was ravaged. That is what Ezekiel\u2019s action symbolized: \u201cFor I impose upon you three hundred and ninety days, corresponding to the number of the years of their punishment; and so you shall bear the punishment for the House of Israel. When you have completed these, you shall lie another forty days on your right side, and bear the punishment of the House of Judah. I impose on you one day for each year\u201d (Ezek. 4:4\u20136). This prophecy came to him in \u201cthe fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin\u201d (Ezek. 1:2). There were a further six years before the exile of Zedekiah, making a total punishment for Judah of 46 years. It\u2019s true that Manasseh reigned for 55 years during the period after the exile of the Ten Tribes, but don\u2019t forget that he was repentant for 33 of those years, meaning there were only 22 years of wickedness during his reign. For \u201che erected altars for Baal and made a sacred post, as King Ahab of Israel had done\u201d (2 Kings 21:3), and \u201cAhab son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria for twenty-two years\u201d (1 Kings 16:29). If Manasseh sinned \u201cas Ahab had done,\u201d it must only have been for 22 years. (See. B. Sanh. 103a.) Amon reigned for two years (2 Chron. 33:21), Jehoiakim for eleven years (2 Chron. 36:5), and another eleven for Zedekiah (2 Chron. 36:11). Do the math: There are 16 sabbatical years and jubilees per century (14 sabbatical years and 2 jubilees), so in 400 years you have 64 of them. Add another 5 sabbatical years for the first 35 of the remaining 36 years of Israel\u2019s sinning and that gives you 69. The jubilee year of that cycle was also counted against them, making 70. That is why 70 years of exile were decreed against them. 2 Chron. 36:20\u201321 says exactly this: \u201cThose who survived the sword he exiled to Babylon, and they became his and his sons\u2019 servants till the rise of the Persian kingdom, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, until the land paid back its sabbaths; as long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath, till seventy years were completed.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Throughout the time that it is desolate, it shall observe the rest. OJPS, \u201cAs long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest,\u201d follows the Hebrew punctuation, which NJPS ignores. The vowel shows that this form of the verb \u201cobserve rest\u201d is pausal (compare the differing form in v. 34), indicating that it ends a phrase. That it did not observe in your sabbath years. The Sages understood the 70 years of the Babylonian exile as exactly this.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Throughout the time that it is desolate. More literally, \u201cthroughout the days that it is desolate,\u201d a reference to the years that it will rest. This is all explained in Ezek. 4:4\u20136.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:36\u201339<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:36<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
I will cast a faintness into their hearts. The Hebrew word morekh, translated \u201cfaintness,\u201d is a portmanteau word, combining mora, \u201cfear,\u201d and rakh, \u201csoft.\u201d The sound of a driven leaf. Rather, a \u201crustling\u201d leaf. A leaf knocked by the wind against other leaves, so that it makes a rustling sound. This is also the understanding of Onkelos, who translates it as a \u201cknocking\u201d leaf. Fleeing as though from the sword. As if killers were chasing them.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
I will cast a faintness into their hearts. Despite the similarity in sound of the Hebrew expressions, this word \u201cfaintness\u201d has nothing to do with \u201csoftness,\u201d as used in Deut. 20:8, \u201cIs there anyone afraid and disheartened?\u201d or Job 23:16, \u201cGod has made me fainthearted.\u201d For the m of our word, morekh, is part of the root. The fact that the accent mark is placed on that letter makes clear that the word is a segholate noun of the ohel (\u201ctent\u201d) or oneg (\u201cdelight\u201d) pattern. In the Bible neither this word nor any other word from this root appears anywhere but here; a verb from the root is, however, found in the Talmud, on B. \u1e24ul. 45b.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
As for those of you who survive. Though \u201cI will unsheathe the sword against you\u201d (v. 33), some few will survive. I will cast a faintness into their hearts. \u201cFaintness\u201d comes from the root \u05e8\u05db\u05da, as in Deut. 20:8, \u201cIs there anyone afraid and disheartened?\u201d You will find a comparable noun formed by adding m to a geminate root in Neh. 8:6, \u201cEzra blessed the LORD, the great God, and all the people answered, \u2018Amen, Amen,\u2019 with hands upraised.\u201d They will be so frightened that the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
As for those of you who survive. Rather, \u201cthe rest of you\u201d\u2014those who were exiled not to Babylonia but \u201cscattered among the nations.\u201d In this second exile, \u201cthe land of your enemies shall consume you\u201d with its interminable length (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:37<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They shall stumble over one another. As they flee, for they will be running so fast that they will get in each other\u2019s way. The midrash adds that they will stumble because of one another, each one tripped up by the sin of the other. For all Jews are responsible for one another. As before the sword. As though they were fleeing from killers brandishing swords. Their hearts will be so filled with fear that they will imagine someone chasing them at every moment.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They shall stumble over one another. More literally, \u201ceach shall stumble over his brother,\u201d one who is on the same side as he.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:38<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
You \u2026 shall perish among the nations. More precisely, \u201cyou shall be lost.\u201d When you are scattered, you will lose track of each other. The land of your enemies shall consume you. This refers to those who would die in exile.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The land of your enemies shall consume you. It is common for masses of refugees to die simply because the air and water are so different from what they are used to.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The land of your enemies shall consume you. But only as cucumbers and squash are consumed, for they are not absorbed into the body (Bekhor Shor). This refers to the great troubles that have passed over us, among them the expulsion of the Jews from France, in which twice as many died as in the exodus from Egypt (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:39<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
They shall be heartsick over the iniquities of their fathers. NJPS omits the words \u201cwith them\u201d (see OJPS). If the iniquities of their fathers remain \u201cwith them,\u201d if they hang on to the same kind of behavior, they shall be \u201cheartsick.\u201d But the Hebrew is considerably stronger than \u201cheartsick.\u201d The verse is saying that if they continue their ancestors\u2019 evil behavior, they will \u201cmelt\u201d or \u201cdissolve.\u201d See the same verb in \u201ctheir eyes shall melt away in their sockets\u201d (Zech. 14:12) and \u201cMy wounds stink and run because of my folly\u201d (Ps. 38:6).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Heartsick. Compare \u201cMy wounds stink and fester because of my folly\u201d (Ps. 38:6). The root is \u05e0\u05de\u05e7, but (as often happens) the \u05e0 assimilates to the \u05de and is marked by a dagesh there.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Those of you who survive. The few who survive from among the survivors of v. 36. Shall be heartsick over their iniquity. The verb is a geminate, \u05de\u05e7\u05e7, but \u201cheartsick\u201d is too wimpy a translation: see the same root as used in \u201ctheir eyes shall rot away in their sockets\u201d (Zech. 14:12) and \u201cAnd then\u2014instead of perfume, there shall be rot\u201d (Isa. 3:24). They shall be heartsick over the iniquities of their fathers. See my comment to Lam. 5:7, \u201cOur fathers sinned and are no more; and we must bear their guilt.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Those of you who survive shall be heartsick over their iniquity in the land of your enemies. Not because of the sabbatical years, which have already been made up in vv. 34\u201335 (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:40\u201342<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Once the Israelites \u201cconfess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers\u201d (v. 40), why must God continue to \u201cwalk contrary unto them, and bring them into the land of their enemies\u201d (v. 41, OJPS), punishing them even more than before they confessed?
\n\u2666 Why does God \u201cremember\u201d the Patriarchs in the opposite of the expected chronological order?
\n\u2666 What sense does it make to follow \u201cI will remember the land\u201d (v. 42) with \u201cthe land shall be forsaken of them\u201d (v. 43)?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:40<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
They, the fathers, trespassed against Me, yea, the children were hostile to Me. The syntax of OJPS is somewhat closer to the Hebrew, which incorporates \u201cthey\u201d in each part of the clause. On \u201chostile,\u201d see my comment to v. 21.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
They shall confess their iniquity. Some of them\u2014Daniel, Ezra, and a few others (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:41<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When I \u2026 have removed them into the land of their enemies. I Myself will do this. For this will actually be doing the Israelites a favor. It will keep the Israelites from saying, \u201cSince we have been exiled among the other nations, let\u2019s behave as they do.\u201d I am not going to let them! I am going to send them My prophets and bring them back under My wing: \u201cWhat you have in mind shall never come to pass\u2014when you say, \u2018We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, worshiping wood and stone.\u2019 As I live\u2014declares the Lord GOD\u2014I will reign over you with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with overflowing fury\u201d (Ezek. 20:32\u201333). Then at last shall their obdurate heart humble itself. Rather, if it humble itself (see OJPS). See Exod. 21:36, where the same Hebrew word clearly means \u201cif\u201d: \u201cIf, however, it is known that the ox was in the habit of goring \u2026\u201d Another possible translation is \u201cperhaps\u201d: \u201cPerhaps then their obdurate heart shall humble itself.\u201d They shall atone for their iniquity. Then (see OJPS) they shall atone for their iniquity by means of their suffering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When I, in turn, have been hostile to them and have removed them. When I have been hostile to them by removing them until they humble themselves. See further my comment to v. 44. They shall atone for their iniquity. The verb is the same used in v. 34, where it is translated \u201cmake up for.\u201d They shall \u201cbe paid the punishment of their iniquity\u201d (OJPS)\u2014but really it is they who will pay the punishment.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Then at last shall their obdurate heart humble itself. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But the word to which Rashi refers literally means \u201cor.\u201d I think the verse is to be understood as follows: \u201cI will bring them into the land of their enemies; then either their obdurate heart will humble itself, or they will atone for their iniquity\u201d by the full 70-year length of the exile. In fact, the \u201cremembering\u201d of v. 42 ought to come right after the \u201cconfession\u201d of v. 40. What is the point of exiling them after they have confessed? Ibn Ezra\u2019s understanding of the verse is that God\u2019s whole purpose in exiling them would be to have them repent and confess. But in my view the verse is saying that, even after they confess, He will remain hostile to them and bring them to \u201cthe land of their enemies\u201d until their obdurate heart humbles itself. That is, this is not a reference to the exile; rather it is a hint that He will bring them back to the land of Israel, but they will not be able to conquer and rule it. Instead, they will continue to have foes and enemies there. This is indeed what happened. See (e.g.) the references to \u201cfoes\u201d and \u201cenemies\u201d in Neh. 4:5 and 4:9, when they were trying to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. For though they had returned, the land remained under Persian control; as Ezra said: \u201cToday we are slaves, and the land that You gave our fathers to enjoy its fruit and bounty\u2014here we are slaves on it! On account of our sins it yields its abundant crops to kings whom You have set over us. They rule over our bodies and our beasts as they please, and we are in great distress\u201d (Neh. 9:36).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When I \u2026 have removed them into the land of their enemies. This will make the evil they face endure for a long time (Gersonides). This second removal clearly refers to the people of the Second Temple period (Abarbanel). Then at last shall their obdurate heart humble itself. The Hebrew literally says \u201cor then\u201d\u2014either their heart shall humble itself when they are exiled, or whenever it does, they shall atone (Kimhi). And they will put their necks back into My yoke (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:42<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob. Five times \u201cJacob\u201d is spelled \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1, with an extra \u05d5 indicating the o sound, instead of the usual \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1, where the o is simply indicated with a dot in the normal way. Now, Elijah\u2019s name in Hebrew is \u201cEliyahu,\u201d spelled \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u2014except for five times when the \u05d5 at the end is missing! Jacob took the \u05d5 from Elijah as a guarantee that he would come and announce the good news that Jacob\u2019s descendants would be redeemed. Jacob \u2026 Isaac \u2026 Abraham. Why are the Patriarchs listed in reverse order here? To let you know that even Jacob, the youngest, is worthy enough to redeem Israel. If for some reason he is not, then his father Isaac is with him. If even they two together are not worthy enough, then Abraham is with them too, and he is certainly worthy. For Jacob learned from his father and Isaac from his father. But whom did Abraham learn from? I will remember also My covenant with Isaac. NJPS is misleading\u2014see OJPS. In fact, it is Isaac, not Abraham, who does not get a mention here of the verb \u201cremember.\u201d But God has no need to \u201cremember\u201d Isaac\u2014\u201cHis ashes lie piled before Me on the altar.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Then will I remember If \u201ctheir heart humble itself\u201d (v. 41).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob. \u201cWith\u201d is not in the verse; the unusual syntax here (found also in Deut. 29:9 and 2 Chron. 15:8) involves a word that is meant to be read both in the context of the preceding phrase and as if it were grammatically in construct with what follows: \u201cThen will I remember My covenant, the covenant with Jacob.\u201d Why Jacob is mentioned first, according to Saadia, is that his entire life was spent within the covenant.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob. Ibn Ezra explains the grammar of this phrase. For the meaning, see the next comment. I will remember the land. I will remember that the land has paid its sabbaths and been \u201cforsaken of them\u201d (v. 43), and that they have made good their transgression. It could be that, according to the True interpretation, the verse is saying, \u201cI will remember that Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham are part of the covenant\u201d\u2014for all of the aspects of God, being part of the covenant, have one or another of these names. The \u201cland\u201d that they comprise I will remember along with them. The Sages ask: Why does He remember the land along with the Patriarchs? Said R. Simeon b. Lakish, \u201cIt is like a lord who had three daughters, all being raised by a governess. Whenever the lord asked how his daughters were doing, he would add, \u2018Find out for me how the governess is doing, as well.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I remember My covenant with Jacob \u2026 Isaac \u2026 Abraham. Not only the covenant with Jacob, but also the covenant with Isaac, which came later, and the covenant with Abraham, which came earlier (Bekhor Shor). The Hebrew does not say \u201calso\u201d with Isaac and Abraham, but \u201ceven\u201d My covenant with Isaac and Abraham\u2014though not all of their sons were part of the covenant, as were Jacob\u2019s (Hizkuni). Even My covenants with Isaac (which I could have transferred from Jacob to Esau) and with Abraham (which I could have transferred from Isaac to Ishmael) I will remember (Abarbanel). \u201cRemembering the covenant\u201d refers to the building of the Second Temple (Sforno).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:43\u201345<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Having said \u201cI will spurn you\u201d (v. 30), how can God then say, \u201cI will not reject them or spurn them\u201d (v. 44)?
\n\u2666 Why does Moses offer so little consolation here\u2014saying merely, \u201cI will remember in their favor the covenant with the ancients\u201d (v. 45)\u2014and not explain that God will bring them back to the land after 70 years? Even Jeremiah said this; was our master Moses a lesser prophet than Jeremiah?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:43<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
For the abundant reason. \u201cBecause, even because\u201d (OJPS). Not merely \u201cbecause,\u201d but in retribution for the fact that they rejected My rules.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The land shall be forsaken of them. For as long as it takes to make up for its sabbaths, while they atone, for the abundant reason that they rejected My rules and spurned My laws. But when the land has made up its sabbaths and they have atoned, then \u201cI will remember in their favor the covenant with the ancients\u201d (v. 45).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
For the land shall be forsaken of them \u2026 while they atone for their iniquity. \u201cFor\u201d is incorrect; this is the continuation of v. 42: \u201cI will remember that the land has been forsaken of them, and has made up for its sabbath years, and that they have atoned for their iniquity.\u201d For the abundant reason. More literally, \u201cBecause, even because\u201d (OJPS)\u2014\u201cBecause they rejected My rules and because they spurned My laws.\u201d<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The land shall be forsaken of them. Even after the \u201cremembering\u201d of v. 42. For after the decree of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to Israel, the land remained \u201cforsaken\u201d for another 19 years while it was making up for the sabbatical years it had missed; only then was the Temple rebuilt and Jerusalem sanctified with two \u201cthanksgiving choirs\u201d (Neh. 12:40). Then the sanctity of the land was restored and they made the pledge, \u201cWe will forgo the produce of the seventh year, and every outstanding debt\u201d (Neh. 10:32). All of the events that took place at that time are alluded to in our chapter.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:44<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Yet, even then. Literally, \u201cAnd yet for all this\u201d (compare OJPS). Even though I inflict on them \u201cthis\u201d (v. 16) punishment I have mentioned, even though I do so when they are in the land of their enemies, still I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them, annulling My covenant with them.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Yet, even then. The Hebrew actually has two words for \u201ceven\u201d here (one is the word translated \u201cin turn\u201d in v. 41) where one would certainly do; the repetition is stylistic. This kind of thing is found everywhere in the Bible. See, for example, the Hebrew texts of Exod. 14:11 and Num. 12:2. I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them. I intend only to discipline them until their heart humbles itself. The same word translated \u201cspurn\u201d can also mean \u201cabhor\u201d (OJPS). Annulling My covenant with them. For I swore to keep My covenant with them. Even if they have broken it (see v. 15), I will not do so, for I the LORD am their God.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them. If not for this, we would have all been destroyed, for the other nations hate us (Kimhi). It is quite obvious that His providence cleaves to us even today, for our enemies rule over us and wish to harm us, yet we live among them (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:45<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The covenant with the ancients. With their ancestral tribes.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The covenant with the ancients, whom I freed from the land of Egypt. Rather, \u201cthe covenant with the ancients,\u201d on whose account \u201cI freed them from the land of Egypt.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
I will remember in their favor. I will remember this forever. The covenant with the ancients. This is the covenant that was made at Sinai. That generation is called \u201cancients\u201d only with respect to the later generation that would be exiled to the land of their enemies. But some think the \u201cancients\u201d are the Patriarchs, in which case it is not they whom I freed from the land of Egypt. In this case the verse is saying, \u201cI will remember the covenant with the ancients, that I would free their descendants from the land of Egypt.\u201d But I think the first explanation is the correct one.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
I will remember in their favor the covenant with the ancients. I will remember it in their favor both inside the land and outside it, in the exile hinted at here and throughout the generations. In the sight of the nations. He will remember His covenant with them for His name\u2019s sake, so that it not be desecrated among the other nations. It is not for their sake, since they have not repented and atoned for their sins. This is how our Sages interpreted v. 44: \u201cI will not reject them [in Vespasian\u2019s days] or spurn them [in the days of the Hellenes] so as to destroy them, annulling My covenant with them [in Haman\u2019s time]: for I the LORD am their God [in the time of Gog and Magog].\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:46\u201327:2<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why are these commandments added alter the covenant of ch. 26 rather than before it with all the other commandments, especially since (as v. 34 explains) they too were given at Sinai?
\n\u2666 Why the strange idiom that calls \u201cthe equivalent for a human being\u201d (v. 2) literally \u201cyour equivalent\u201d (see OJPS)? All of these equivalences are set by the Torah itself, not by the priests or the Israelites.
\n\u2666 Why is \u201cthe equivalent for a human being\u201d specified by category, rather than being estimated by the priest in each specific case as it would be for vows of land or animals?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 26:46<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Instructions. Literally, \u201cthe Torahs\u201d\u2014the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The plural here tells us that both of them were given to Moses at Sinai.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Through Moses on Mount Sinai. The passage about the sabbatical years (referenced in v. 35) began with this notice: \u201cThe LORD spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai\u201d (25:1). Since ch. 25 concerns itself with the sabbatical year and the jubilee, the release of slaves and the return of lands, our chapter includes the execration of the people if they should violate them. All this was spoken together, at Sinai.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
These are the laws, rules, and instructions. The reference is to those written in ch. 25 as well as to the Ten Commandments and the laws of Exodus 21\u201323. That the LORD established, through Moses on Mount Sinai, between Himself and the Israelite people. This certainly alludes to the covenant of Exodus 24, since after the Tabernacle was constructed and the Presence began to dwell in the Tent of Meeting, Moses did not go back up Mount Sinai. You will notice that ch. 27 was also said at Sinai, as 27:34 says. But the first verse of the book of Numbers will return us to the Tent of Meeting, as at the beginning of Leviticus.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
These are the laws, rules, and instructions that the LORD established, through Moses on Mount Sinai, between Himself and the Israelite people. Included in this is everything from Exodus 21 through Leviticus 27. The \u201cTorahs\u201d are indeed, as translated by NJPS, the instructions for carrying out the laws (Gersonides). The \u201claws\u201d mentioned here could be the curses of our chapter; this would explain what Ezek. 20:25 means by saying that God \u201cgave them laws that were not good\u201d (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:1<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses. This passage is appended to the reproofs of ch. 26, having also been said at Sinai. For it too is part of the laws of the jubilee year (see vv. 16\u201324). But these verses were combined with the other laws of consecrating something to the Lord. V. 34 then reiterates, \u201cThese are the commandments that the LORD gave Moses for the Israelite people on Mount Sinai.\u201d From Numbers on, the Torah returns to the laws given at the Tent of Meeting.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The LORD spoke to Moses, saying. This chapter might well have been included in the previous weekly portion, with ch. 25 (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:2<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Explicitly vows. By a clear utterance. The equivalent for a human being. Rather, \u201cfor a life.\u201d It is as much as to say, \u201cI vow to give the Lord the value of\u201d such a person\u2019s life\u2014which may be expressed by mentioning an organ necessary for life (e.g., \u201cmy head,\u201d \u201cmy liver\u201d).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Explicitly vows. The one who offers a vow must plainly express how much he is vowing and what the nature of his vow is. By such an explicit utterance, he effectively separates the object of his vow from the secular realm and designates it as holy.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The equivalent for a human being. Not \u201ca human being\u201d but \u201ca life,\u201d whether human or animal. He is making a vow of the following kind: \u201cIf the Lord will do such-and-such for me, I will redeem my life [or \u201cthe life of my son\u201d or of some animal] at its equivalent value.\u201d The translations follow the unanimous opinion of the grammarians, which is that the suffix of the word \u201cequivalent,\u201d which looks like the pronoun \u201cyour,\u201d is simply a repeated letter. But some do think that it literally means \u201cyour,\u201d the priest\u2019s, equivalent, that is, the valuation set by you, the priest. See v. 12, which would therefore have to be translated as \u201cwhatever assessment is set by you, O priest,\u201d with \u05d4 representing the vocative rather than the definite article. This would not explain the unusual grammar of v. 23, which literally says \u201cthe your equivalent.\u201d But there is a similar grammatical usage in Josh. 7:21, \u201cThey are buried in the ground in the my tent.\u201d In my opinion that phrase simply means \u201cthat tent of mine\u201d\u2014and it is the same with our word.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When anyone explicitly vows. This includes a child who is old enough to vow \u201cexplicitly\u201d\u2014a boy over 12 years old and a girl over 11, as long as they understand what they are doing (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:3\u20138<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why does the text specify different values (vv. 3\u20137) for males and females? \u201cMale and female He created them\u201d (Gen. 1:27)! When an ox gores a slave (Exod. 21:32), the payment is 30 shekels\u2014there is no difference between male and female. Why should it not be the same here?
\n\u2666 Why is the difference in value between males and females not constant? Between the ages of 5\u201320, a female is worth half a male; over 60, she is worth two-thirds; in the other cases, she is worth three-fifths!<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:3<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
The equivalent. What he is vowing to give is not the monetary worth of the person but his \u201cvaluation\u201d (OJPS)\u2014whether large or small\u2014\u201caccording to the years involved\u201d (25:52), that is, whatever value is placed on the person by the rules given in this chapter. Note that the Hebrew word looks as if it means \u201cyour equivalent.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The equivalent. The \u05db at the end of the root is doubled. This phenomenon is common in rabbinic Hebrew, as we see with color words: odem (\u201credness\u201d) has a longer form, admumit; loven (\u201cwhiteness\u201d) yields lavnunit.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
From twenty. At the beginning of his military service. To sixty. When he reaches old age. Many people think the ages in this passage are simply a decree of the King. Look at the five shekels one would pay for a boy aged from one month to five years (v. 6). One day younger than a month\u2014nothing; one day older\u2014five shekels. But in Saadia\u2019s opinion the valuation goes up by one shekel annually until it reaches five shekels at the age of five. Many people understand vv. 3\u20137 as describing the four ages of man, with the second stage running to the end of one\u2019s 19th year and the third to the end of one\u2019s 59th year. Throughout each stage, you pay the same at the end as you did to start with. The last years cover the ages from 60\u201375. These are the four ages of man. Now, does 20 mean 20 full years, or at least one day into the 20th year? So we will rely solely on the words of tradition. For if the valuations increased by a shekel a year, what need would there be to separate the one-month-to-5-years category from the 5-years-to-20-years category? And why would a one-month-old pay a full shekel? There is also this little matter of the first month itself, when the child has no equivalent whatsoever. Then, after 60, when the equivalent becomes less, does the amount stay the same, or does it go down every year until, after 75, he once again has no equivalent? All of these ideas are seriously confused. As a general principle, we should simply take what the text says at face value. If, for example, you try to understand the difference in valuation between males and females, you will see that the females are sometimes valued at 50% of the male equivalent, sometimes at 60%, and sometimes at 67%.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The following scale shall apply. The Torah did not want human beings to be valued individually like horses or donkeys (Abarbanel). If it is a male. This applies only if it is a male or female (whether Israelite or not)\u2014but not if it is a hermaphrodite or one of doubtful sex (Gersonides). By the sanctuary weight. 384 barleycorns per shekel (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:4<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If it is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. One would expect it to be half, 25 shekels, but a female in this category may produce children, so her equivalent is boosted by five shekels (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:5<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the age is from five years to twenty years. Not, of course, the age of the one who is vowing, since a child\u2019s vow is null and void. The reference is to a grown-up who says, \u201cI vow to give the equivalent valuation of this five-year-old.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:7<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If the age is sixty years or over, the equivalent is fifteen shekels in the case of a male and ten shekels for a female. Once they reach old age, a woman\u2019s worth grows closer to that of a man (which is why the man goes down to less than a third of his previous valuation, the woman only to exactly one-third). As the saying goes, \u201cAn old man in the house? You\u2019ve got trouble. An old woman in the house? You\u2019ve got treasure.\u201d<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Sixty years or over. Ordinarily a man will work at his full strength. When he gets older and weaker, he cannot do as much and so his valuation is less, for he never learned a lighter trade. A woman does lighter work, and hence loses less of her capability as she ages (Bekhor Shor).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:8<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
According to what the vower can afford. The priest will assess how much he has and leave him enough to budget for the necessities of life: a bed and bedclothes, and the tools of his trade. If he is a donkey driver, the priest must leave him his donkey.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He shall be presented before the priest. The Hebrew verb is active\u2014the priest (understood to be the subject of the verb) shall present him before the priest. See my comment to 14:15; omitting the subject is a feature of Biblical Hebrew style. Or perhaps it means that the person who made the vow presents himself. The priest shall assess him. That is, the person being assessed is put into this or that financial category, as appropriate. Notice how much a slight vowel change alters the meaning: \u201cassess\u201d here in the Hiphil becomes \u201carrange\u201d in the Qal simply by eliding the i vowel (see 24:8).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
He shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess him. The one about whom the vow was made is assessed in line with the vower\u2019s ability to pay. Since the equivalents are set by the Torah in shekels, the lowest possible equivalent is one shekel (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:9\u201315<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why must one who wishes to redeem his house \u201cadd one-fifth to the sum at which it was assessed\u201d (v. 15)? Certainly all the priest\u2019s words are just, and it was he who assessed the value of the man\u2019s house!<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:9<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Any such that may be given to the LORD. More precisely, \u201call that any man giveth of such\u201d (OJPS). If he vows to give the leg of the animal to the Lord, his words must stand. The animal is sold as an offering and the money he receives is not considered consecrated except for the amount at which that particular limb is valued.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Any such that may be given to the LORD. Any such that \u201cmay be brought as an offering\u201d shall be holy. If it was consecrated without qualification, it is to be offered as a sacrifice, not sold for operating funds.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Any animal that may be brought as an offering. It is not clear whether this applies to birds as well as animals (Gersonides). Any such. This verse and 6:8 are two of the six cases where \u201cfrom it\u201d in the masculine gender apparently should really be in the feminine gender (Masorah).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:10<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Either good for bad. Exchanging an unblemished animal for a blemished one. Or bad for good. If one cannot replace a blemished animal with a good one\u2014since the exact animal one has vowed must be brought as an offering\u2014then it goes without saying that one cannot exchange a good one for another good one, or a bad one for another bad one.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Either good for bad, or bad for good. Since you do not know what kind of blemish or disease the animal has internally, you do not really know which is the bad and which the good (Bekhor Shor). Every change is in some respect detrimental (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:11<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Any unclean animal. That is, a blemished animal, which is \u201cunclean\u201d for sacrificial purposes. The verse teaches you that a consecrated animal which is not blemished cannot be \u201credeemed\u201d to secular status unless it has become blemished.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
If the vow concerns any unclean animal. That is, an animal that was sanctified to be offered for sacrifice and subsequently became \u201cunclean\u201d by acquiring a blemish. The animal shall be presented before the priest. And the one who presents it must replace it with a sacrifice of equal value, as assessed by the priest.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Any unclean animal that may not be brought as an offering. The straightforward sense of this is as translated. But our Sages understand the phrase as a redundancy and interpret \u201cany unclean animal\u201d as a reference to unclean species, and \u201cthat may not be brought as an offering\u201d as further indicating individual animals that are from a clean species but have a permanent blemish of a kind that prohibits them from being offered to the Lord.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:12<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Whatever assessment is set by the priest shall stand. The one who vows it must pay extra to redeem it (see v. 13), but if it is sold to anyone else, he buys it at the price set by the priest.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The priest shall assess it. Our Sages agreed that the assessment should be made by a panel of three, but (since the Torah insists) one of them must be a priest (Gersonides).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:13<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he wishes to redeem it. The original owner of the animal is treated more severely by the text; he must add 25 percent (amounting to \u201cone-fifth\u201d of the new total). It is the same for a house (vv. 14\u201315), a field (vv. 16\u201319), and, as far as that goes, even for the second tithe of Deut. 14:22\u201326. The original owners must add 25 percent, but this does not apply to any other purchaser who \u201credeems\u201d it.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
If he wishes to redeem it, he must add one-fifth to its assessment. People like their own things, so the owner might try to sweet-talk the priest into assessing it at a lower rate than its actual value (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:16\u201321<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:16<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Its assessment shall be in accordance with its seed requirement. That is, in accordance with the size of the field, not with how fertile it is. A fertile field or one of the same size that produces little are redeemed at the same price: Fifty shekels of silver to a \u1e25omer of barley seed. This is what the text decrees. That, of course, applies only if he comes to redeem the land at the very beginning of the 50-year jubilee cycle. If he comes to redeem the land at some later point, he pays 11\u204448 shekel per year, since the land is consecrated only until the jubilee. If it is redeemed, fine; if not, the temple treasurer can sell it at this same price to someone else, who then keeps it until the jubilee year, just like anyone else who \u201cpurchases\u201d land. When he returns it, in the jubilee year, it goes to the priests of whatever watch happens to be on duty when the jubilee occurs, and it is distributed among them. Those are the rules about consecrating land. Now I will explain the passage verse by verse.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Any land that he holds. Which is part of his ancestral Israelite holding. A \u1e25omer of barley seed. \u201cAs 10 baths make a \u1e25omer\u201d (Ezek. 45:14) and \u201cthe ephah and the bath shall comprise the same volume\u201d (Ezek. 45:11), the assessment is therefore five shekels per ephah. The fact that the field is assessed according to its acreage at a standard rate, like the price of a slave in Exod. 21:32, is another \u201cdecree of the King.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:17<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he consecrates his land as of the jubilee year. If he consecrates the land immediately after the end of the jubilee year and then immediately comes to redeem it. Its assessment stands. He pays \u201cfifty shekels of silver to a \u1e25omer of barley seed\u201d (v. 16).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
As of the jubilee year. During the jubilee year itself.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:18<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But if he consecrates his land after the jubilee. The same applies if he consecrates it after the end of the jubilee year, as long as it remains in the hands of the temple treasurer for awhile, and he then comes at some point after the jubilee to redeem it. The priest shall compute the price according to the years that are left. If the price for 49 years is 50 shekels, that is one shekel per year with one shekel left over. Now a shekel is 48 pundions, meaning that the price per year is 11\u204448 shekel (except that one pundion is missing from the sum total). Our Sages regarded this missing pundion as the commission for changing a shekel into smaller coins. So anyone who comes to redeem this land must give one shekel and one pundion for every year remaining until the jubilee. Its assessment shall be so reduced. By the number of years from the jubilee until the year when the land is redeemed.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Its assessment shall be so reduced. Pro rata.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:19<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he who consecrated the land wishes to redeem it. The person who actually consecrated the land must add 25 percent to the price, calculated as described in v. 18.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
And if he who consecrated the land wishes to redeem it. As I have often shown you, here too the vav at the beginning of the verse is not \u201cand\u201d but an emphatic word like Arabic fa. Vv. 19\u201320 are continuing the topic of assessment that was begun in vv. 16\u201318\u2014not whether or not he wishes to redeem the land.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:20<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But if he does not redeem the land. \u201cHe\u201d being the person who originally consecrated it. And the land is sold to another. More literally, \u201cif he,\u201d the temple treasurer, \u201chave sold the field to another man\u201d (OJPS). It shall no longer be redeemable. The man who originally consecrated it can no longer get it back.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
The land is sold to another. By the temple treasurer. In this case, the original owner can no longer redeem it. Instead, at the jubilee it is divided up among the priests of the watch on duty.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If he does not redeem the land, and the land is sold to another. Rather, \u201cor\u201d it is sold to another (see OJPS). In either of these cases, the land becomes \u201choly to the LORD\u201d (v. 21).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:21<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
When it is released in the jubilee. When it is \u201creleased\u201d from the one who purchased it from the temple treasury. As with any other field, here too the purchaser must release it at the jubilee. The land shall be holy to the LORD. It is not that the land reverts to consecrated status, requiring its value to be devoted to the Temple\u2019s operating expenses. Rather, it is land proscribed, being given permanently to the priests. As God tells Aaron, \u201cEverything that has been proscribed in Israel shall be yours\u201d (Num. 18:14). This land too shall be divided among the priests of whatever watch is on duty when the Day of Atonement of the jubilee year arrives.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
It becomes the priest\u2019s holding. Rather, \u201cthe holding [that had belonged to the one who consecrated it] becomes the priest\u2019s.\u201d<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
When it is released in the jubilee. The text uses \u201creleased in the jubliee\u201d as it would for any field, through in facat this land, through \u201creleased\u201d from the intermediate purchaser of v. 20, is not released back tot he original owner. As land proscribed. When one takes a vow to \u201cproscribe\u201d something, it becomes \u201choly to the LORD meaning that the valuation of the land goes to \u201cthe\u201d priest who assessed it. \u201cThe\u201d priest does not have to be the High Priest.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:22\u201327<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Why is the rule about the \u201cfirstling of animals\u201d (v. 26) qualified by the word \u201chowever,\u201d which is not found in any of the other commandments?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:22<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If he consecrates to the LORD land that he purchased, which is not land of his holding. A distinction is made between land that he merely purchased and land that is part of his ancestral holding. Purchased land is not distributed among the priests at the jubilee, since the purchaser does not have the power to consecrate it permanently. At the jubilee the land is going to revert from him back to the original owner. So he can redeem the land at a prorated amount of this same 50-shekel price. Whether or not he redeems it (and if he does not, the temple treasurer may sell it to someone else), at the jubilee \u201cthe land shall revert [by the one who later consecrated it] to him from whom it was [originally] bought\u201d (v. 24). To prevent you from thinking that the land reverts to the one from whom the most recent purchaser bought it\u2014that would be the temple treasurer\u2014v. 24 identifies the seller as the one \u201cwhose holding the land is,\u201d whose ancestral inheritance it is. That must be the original owner who sold it to the one who consecrated it.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:23<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
The proportionate assessment. Compare Exod. 12:4, \u201cBut if the household is too small for a lamb, let him share one with a neighbor who dwells nearby, in proportion to the number of persons.\u201d<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:24<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
To him from whom it was bought. For the one who \u201cbought\u201d it does not have the power to consecrate it; he may only consecrate what the land would produce for him before the jubilee.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
To him from whom it was bought. That is, to the original seller, the one whose holding the land is.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:25<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All assessments shall be by the sanctuary weight. By the sanctuary \u201cshekel\u201d (OJPS). Wherever the text refers to a shekel, it is the official shekel of the sanctuary that is used. Twenty gerahs. Twenty ma\u2019ot. That is what it originally was. Later, it was increased to 24 ma\u2019ot. The Sages say, \u201cSix silver ma\u2019ot make a dinar; 24 make a sela,\u201d that is, a shekel.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:26<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
A firstling \u2026 cannot be consecrated by anybody. Not for any other sacrifice; it does not belong to him.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Cannot be consecrated by anybody. For some other kind of offering. It is automatically consecrated already as a first-born offering.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
A firstling of animals, however, which\u2014as a firstling\u2014is the LORD\u2019S. The Hebrew actually uses a Pual verb, which would mean something like \u201cwhich is firstlinged to the Lord.\u201d The verse refers to someone who utters the meaningless statement, \u201cI hereby give this firstling to the Lord!\u201d As a firstling, it is obviously the Lord\u2019s.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
A firstling of animals \u2026 cannot be consecrated by anybody. See Rashi\u2019s comment. It would be more correct to say that there is no need to consecrate it. For, whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD\u2019S automatically. The verse is not a prohibition, just an explanation that this is not possible. Deut. 15:19, which says, \u201cYou shall consecrate to the LORD your God all male firstlings that are born in your herd and in your flock,\u201d continues by explaining what it means by \u201cconsecration\u201d: \u201cYou must not work your firstling ox or shear your firstling sheep. You and your household shall eat it annually before the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 15:19\u201320).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:27<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
But if it is of unclean animals. \u201cIt\u201d does not refer to the firstling of v. 26, since an unclean animal cannot be \u201cransomed.\u201d Nor can \u201cit\u201d be a donkey, which must be \u201credeemed\u201d with a lamb (and that is not consecrated, merely given to a priest). V. 11 describes a clean animal that must be redeemed because it has become blemished; our verse goes on to speak of consecrating an unclean animal so that its value can be used for the Temple\u2019s operating expenses. It may be ransomed at its assessment. At the value the priest assessed it. If it is not redeemed by the original owner, it shall be sold at its assessment to someone else.<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
But if it is of unclean animals. In contrast to v. 11, here the reference is literally to an animal of an unclean species, as the Sages explained. If someone consecrates such an animal for temple use, it may be redeemed based on the priest\u2019s assessment (as I explained in my comment to v. 11), whether it is blemished or unblemished.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
If it is of unclean animals, it may be ransomed at its assessment. Even such a firstling can only be redeemed, if it has been consecrated, by adding one-fifth. He must also (per Exod. 13:13) give a sheep. If he does not consecrate it, he is perfectly free to sell it. But if it is the firstling of an ass, even if he has not consecrated it he must still give a sheep of the same value as the ass. But there are many who disagree with my understanding of this verse.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
But if it is of unclean animals, it may be ransomed. Despite what Rashi says, I think it may be possible to explain the verse as saying that the first-born rule of v. 26 does not apply if the animal was of a species that may not be offered as a sacrifice. (According to Exod. 13:13, a special rule applies to a firstling ass.) Our verse would be saying that the first-born of one of these species can be consecrated\u2014not as a firstling, but like any other thing of value. Hence it can be redeemed from its consecrated state by adding one-fifth to its assessed value. But if it is not redeemed, it shall be sold at its assessment.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:28\u201329<\/p>\n
ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS<\/p>\n
\u2666 Now v. 28 suddenly invokes this word \u201chowever\u201d\u2014translated as \u201cbut\u201d this time. Why?<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:28<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Man. E.g., if he were to proscribe his non-Jewish slaves. Nothing that he has proscribed for the LORD may be sold or redeemed. Our Sages disagree on the meaning of \u201cproscription.\u201d Some say it is the equivalent of consecrating something for general temple use. This requires understanding Num. 18:14, \u201cEverything that has been proscribed in Israel shall be yours,\u201d as referring to something whose owner specifically says, \u201cThis is proscribed for a priest.\u201d Others think proscription is not the same as consecration, but automatically means that the thing is devoted to priestly use. But all parties agree that this verse refers to things that have been proscribed for priestly use only, and that any such thing cannot be redeemed until it has actually come into possession of a priest. By contrast, things that are proscribed for divine use\u2014for the Temple in general\u2014may be redeemed. Every proscribed thing is totally consecrated to the LORD. This phrase is used as proof by those who understand proscription to be the same as consecration. Those who understand proscription as automatically restricting a thing to priestly use alone interpret the phrase somewhat differently: Even things that are \u201ctotally consecrated\u201d may be proscribed for priestly use, not merely things that are just \u201cconsecrated\u201d (at a lesser degree of sanctity). One may \u201cgive\u201d such a thing to the priest in the following way, as explained on B. Ar. 28b: if one vows to bring a sacrifice and \u201cproscribes\u201d it, one must give the value of the animal to the priest; if one promises to give a specific animal, one must give the priest the benefit one gets from offering it.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Of all that anyone owns. Of all that is under his control. Be it man or beast or land. For even human beings can be proscribed in certain situations, as in wartime: \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).<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
Every proscribed thing. There are two different kinds of \u201cproscription\u201d in the Bible: declaring something available for priestly use only, which is covered in this verse, and setting something aside for total destruction, which is covered in v. 29 (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:29<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
No human being who has been proscribed can be ransomed. If someone is being taken away to be executed and someone else says, \u201cI vow to give his valuation to the Temple,\u201d his words are meaningless. He shall be put to death. A person who is about to die cannot be redeemed\u2014he has no market value and no \u201cequivalent valuation.\u201d<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
No human being who has been proscribed. No one who has been condemned to death by the court can be redeemed.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
No human being who has been proscribed can be ransomed: he shall be put to death. See Rashi\u2019s comment; but our Sages were in disagreement about this. Some say that the verse is a warning to convicts that the courts will not accept a ransom from them; but it could possibly mean that no such ransom may be given to the Lord. In context with v. 28, the straightforward sense would seem to be that, if a man proscribes anything he owns, man or beast or land, it goes to the priests and cannot be redeemed. But if one proscribes a man whom he does not currently own\u2014e.g., going out to fight the enemy and promising the Lord, \u201cIf You deliver this people into our hand, we will proscribe their towns\u201d (Num. 21:2)\u2014then every human being found in those towns must die. The point of proscribing enemies is not to give them to the priests, but to renounce all personal benefit from them and instead to cut them off and do away with them completely. Look at the story in Judges 21, when the Israelites sent 12,000 warriors to \u201cput the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead to the sword, women and children included\u201d (Judg. 21:8). It cannot be that the whole \u201cassemblage\u201d (Judg. 21:10) would commit the incredible crime of killing so many Jews if they had not done something that made them deserving of death\u2014especially as Aaron\u2019s grandson Phinehas was there, and the whole thing was done under his supervision. According to a story I found in the midrash, what they were guilty of was just this, redeeming enemies whom they had proscribed. When King Saul found that his son had done this, he swore to him, \u201cThus and more may God do: You shall be put to death, Jonathan!\u201d (1 Sam. 14:44). From what other source could he, or they, be judged deserving of death than our verse? Exactly this was Jephthah\u2019s mistake with his daughter. He thought that any such proscription which took effect on a person meant that the person must die\u2014not knowing that only the king or the Sanhedrin can issue this kind of proscription, and then only against those who rebel against their authority.
\nOur Sages thought that this verse contained a great many things, for example, the law about vowing the equivalent of one who is sentenced to death, that about proscribing the enemy during the conquest of the land (as we said), and the law about violating a proscription issued by the Sanhedrin or the King of Israel. That is exactly what happened in the story of Saul and Jonathan: \u201cThe troops said to Saul, \u2018Shall Jonathan die, after bringing this great victory to Israel? Never! As the LORD lives, not a hair of his head shall fall to the ground! For he brought this day to pass with the help of God.\u2019 Thus the troops ransomed Jonathan and he did not die\u201d (1 Sam. 14:45). This is the exact opposite of what our verse says: He cannot be ransomed; he must be put to death. Since a miracle came to pass through him\u2014the \u201cgreat victory\u201d\u2014they understood that he had eaten the honey without knowing that his father had declared, \u201cCursed be the man who eats anything this day\u201d (1 Sam. 14:28).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:30\u201334<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:30<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All tithes from the land. This refers to the second tithe of Deut. 14:22\u201326. Seed from the ground. The new grain. Fruit from the tree. The wine and the oil. Are the LORD\u2019S. The Lord acquires all such things automatically. It is therefore from His own table that He requires you to come and eat in Jerusalem: \u201cYou shall consume the tithes of your new grain and wine and oil, and the firstlings of your herds and flocks, in the presence of the LORD your God\u201d (Deut. 14:23).<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
All tithes from the land. This refers to the second tithe.<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:31<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
If anyone wishes to redeem any of his tithes. But one who redeems someone else\u2019s tithes does not add one-fifth. What is \u201credemption\u201d of these tithes? Releasing them so that they may be eaten anywhere, not just in Jerusalem. But the money with which he redeems them must be taken to Jerusalem and spent on food there: \u201cYou may convert them into money. Wrap up the money and take it with you to the place that the LORD your God has chosen\u201d (Deut. 14:25).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:32<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
All that passes under the shepherd\u2019s staff. When it is time to tithe, he lets them out of the gate one at a time. He taps each tenth one with his staff, which is dipped in red dye so that each tenth animal can be identified. This is what they do for all the lambs and all the calves of each and every year. Shall be holy. Their blood and their sacrificial parts shall be offered on the altar, but the meat may be eaten by the owner. For these tithes are not listed among those things that must be given to the priests, nor do we find anywhere else in the Torah that this meat must be given to the priests.<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Under the shepherd\u2019s staff. OJPS is more literal, but NJPS has the sense. Note that the firstlings still must be offered, aside from every tenth sheep. (A \u201ctenth\u201d sheep can be redeemed for another, but a firstling cannot.) The firstlings and \u201ctenths\u201d among animals are the equivalent of the first fruits and tithes for crops.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
All that passes under the shepherd\u2019s staff. It must pass under its own power. This teaches that they would put the animals\u2019 mothers outside so that the lambs and calves would hear their voices and go out to them (Gersonides). Every tenth one shall be holy to the LORD. For the glory of God is the 10\/v level of the separate intellects, the sphere of intellect that surrounds all the other spheres and is holy to the Lord. Note that the tribe of Levi is the 10\/v of Jacob\u2019s sons, counting backward from Benjamin (Abarbanel).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:33<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
He must not look out for good as against bad. Since Deut. 12:11 refers to \u201call the choice votive offerings,\u201d we might think that he would have to deliberately choose the best animals. In fact, this is not so. The sanctity of the tithe takes hold on the animal whether it is blemished or not. A blemished animal cannot of course be offered as a sacrifice, but it is certainly eaten as part of the second tithe (and it may not be shorn or worked in the field).<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
He must not look out for good as against bad. He must not \u201cdistinguish\u201d between them; see my comments to 13:36 and Gen. 1:5. Anyone with a mind prepared to comprehend the secrets of the world will understand the religious mystery lying behind the first-born and the tenth. Notice that even Abraham already gave tithes: \u201cAbram gave him a tenth of everything\u201d (Gen. 14:20), as did our Patriarch Jacob, may he rest in peace: \u201cOf all that You giv me, I will set aside a tithe for You\u201d (Gen. 28:22). I will yet reveal more of this secret to you when I discuss the second tithe, in my comments to Deut. 14:22, with the help of the One (and there is no other).<\/p>\n
Leviticus 27:34<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
On Mount Sinai. See my comment to 26:46.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/p>\n
These are the commandments. From now on, no prophet will come along to add to them (Hizkuni). These laws of ch. 27 are commandments, but they are not part of the covenant (Sforno).<\/p>\n
GLOSSARY<\/p>\n
argument a fortiori\u2014known in rabbinic literature as a kal va-\u1e25omer, this is the logical suggestion that, since X is known to be true for a certain situation, it must obviously be true for a comparable situation where the same logic is even stronger<\/p>\n
conjugation\u2014Hebrew verb patterns; see Special Topics, \u201cBiblical Hebrew\u201d<\/p>\n
construct case\u2014a Hebrew grammatical term denoting the grammatical case that connects a noun to what follows it (e.g., the absolute form davar means \u201ca word\u201d; the construct form dvar means \u201ca\/the word of \u2026\u201d)<\/p>\n
dagesh\u2014the dot that is occasionally found in Hebrew letters<\/p>\n
ga\u2019on, pl. ge\u2019onim\u2014an honorary title for the great leaders of the rabbinic academies of Babylonia<\/p>\n
geminate\u2014a root in which the second letter is \u201ctwinned,\u201d being used as the third letter of the root as well (e.g., SBB, \u05e1\u05d1\u05d1)<\/p>\n
halakhah\u2014Jewish law; literally, \u201cgoing,\u201d or (more colloquially) \u201cthe Way\u201d<\/p>\n
Halakhot Gedolot\u2014a Jewish legal code of the ge\u2019onic period, of uncertain authorship<\/p>\n
Hallel\u2014Psalms 113\u201318, recited together as part of the liturgy on festivals<\/p>\n
Jerusalem Targum\u2014a Palestinian Aramaic translation of the Torah, of uncertain date, and now existing in several versions<\/p>\n
Karaites\u2014Jews who rejected the rabbinic Oral Law and claimed to base their way of life on the Torah alone<\/p>\n
log\u2014a liquid measure roughly equivalent to a pint<\/p>\n
masoretic\u2014from the Hebrew word masorah (\u201ctradition\u201d), referring to the text of the Hebrew Bible as fixed by the Masoretes, textual scholars of the 8th\u201311th centuries C.E.<\/p>\n
Mekilta\u2014a collection of midrashim, from the time of the Mishnah, primarily on the legal sections of Exodus; the standard Mekilta is that of R. Ishmael, but there is another, known as the Mekilta of R. Simeon bar Yohai<\/p>\n
Mishneh Torah\u2014the law code written by Maimonides<\/p>\n
Sanhedrin\u2014understood in rabbinic literature as the highest court or council in Israel, composed of rabbinic Sages<\/p>\n
Seder Olam\u2014a work relating the chronology of the world from Adam to the Bar Kokhba revolt<\/p>\n
sefirot (sg. sefirah)\u2014in Jewish mysticism, the 10 emanations (each associated with a different divine quality) through which the immaterial Infinite God manifests Himself in the material world<\/p>\n
shofar\u2014the ram\u2019s horn traditionally blown in Jewish ritual leading up to, during, and after the Ten Days of Repentance at the beginning of the month of Tishrei<\/p>\n
Sifra\u2014a collection of midrashim, from the time of the Mishnah, on the book of Leviticus<\/p>\n
Sifrei\u2014collections of midrashim, from the time of the Mishnah, on the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy<\/p>\n
Sifrei Zuta\u2014an alternative version of the Sifrei to Numbers<\/p>\n
Targum Jonathan\u2014the \u201cofficial\u201d Aramaic translation of the Prophets<\/p>\n
tekiah\u2014a long, single blast on the shofar<\/p>\n
teruah\u2014a series of short blasts on the shofar<\/p>\n
Tetragrammaton\u2014the four-letter personal name of God, not pronounced by Jews<\/p>\n
NAMES MENTIONED IN THE TEXT<\/p>\n
Aaron b. Asher\u201410th-c. scholar of the biblical text from Tiberias
\nAaron b. Joseph Ha-Kohen Sargado\u2014ga\u2019on and head of the academy at Pumbedita, 942\u201360
\nDunash ben Labrat\u201410th-c. Spanish lexicographer; a student of Saadia and a rival of Menahem ibn Saruq
\nEzra b. Solomon\u201413th-c. Spanish kabbalist and author of the commentary on the Song of Songs traditionally attributed to Nahmanides
\nJeshua b. Judah\u201411th-c. Karaite commentator from Jerusalem
\nJonah ibn Janah\u201411th-c. Spanish grammarian and lexicographer
\nJudah the Persian\u2014a scholar known primarily from his being mentioned by Ibn Ezra
\nMaimonides\u201412th-c. physician, philosopher, and talmudist in Cairo
\nMenahem ibn Saruq\u201410th-c. pioneering Hebrew lexicographer from Spain
\nMoses b. Naphtali\u2014contemporary and perhaps rival of Aaron b. Asher in scholarship determining precisely the consonants, vowels, and punctuation\/accent marks of the biblical text
\nMoses b. Samuel ha-Kohen Gikatilla\u201411th-c. Spanish grammarian
\nOnkelos\u2014legendary 2nd-c. translator of the Torah into Aramaic
\nRabbenu Hananel\u201411th-c. North African commentator on the Talmud
\nSaadia\u201410th-c. ga\u2019on of Sura (though born in Egypt); biblical commentator, philosopher, and enemy of the Karaites
\nSamuel b. Hophni\u20149th\u201310th-c. head of the talmudic academy of Sura<\/p>\n
SOURCE TEXTS<\/p>\n
The Hebrew texts of the commentators as printed in traditional versions of the Miqra\u2019ot Gedolot are not always the best available texts. They may include mistakes made by the printers or by earlier scribes, as well as comments added by transcribers, supercommentators, and editors. (For example, in one place in the book of Kings, \u201cRashi\u201d explains something by using a word in Russian.) Despite the freedom I have taken in representing the words of the commentators, I have tried to use the best available texts of their comments. The Miqra\u2019ot Gedolot published by Bar-Ilan University Press (see \u201cResources for Further Study,\u201d below) is currently considered the most reliable edition, being based on comprehensive manuscript research done by the most respected scholars in the field. As of this writing, however, that edition is available for only two of the five books of the Torah, Genesis and Exodus. For Leviticus, therefore, I have relied on the editions of Berliner (for Rashi), Rosin (for Rashbam), Krinsky (for Ibn Ezra), and Chavel (for Nahmanides).<\/p>\n
SPECIAL TOPICS<\/p>\n
TABERNACLE AND TEMPLE<\/p>\n
With regard to ritual practice, much of the Torah speaks specifically only of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and of Moses\u2019 brother Aaron as its High Priest. But since the Torah is understood to be setting out a system of rules for ongoing practice, much of what it says about Aaron and the Tabernacle is understood to apply (with alterations where necessary) to later High Priests and the Temples at which they served. The commentators often assume, without explicitly saying so, that when a biblical verse mentions Aaron, it is talking about \u201cthe High Priest,\u201d and is giving a rule that applies to the Temple, rather than (as it may sound) to the Tabernacle only. During the intervals when no central sanctuary existed, sacrifice was permitted (according to Jewish tradition) at local altars called \u201chigh places.\u201d But unless the commentators specifically mention these altars, they are usually talking about the rules that apply at the Tabernacle or the Temple in Jerusalem.
\nThe fact that holiness is centered in a particular location means that the sacred system also requires a sort of \u201cinfection control,\u201d often referred to in English as \u201critual purity,\u201d that protects the holiness inherent in sacred places. The Hebrew words describing opposing states in this system are sometimes translated as \u201cpure\u201d and \u201cimpure,\u201d sometimes as \u201cclean\u201d and \u201cunclean.\u201d In fact, there can be different degrees of \u201cuncleanness,\u201d both in terms of its severity and in terms of how and whether the uncleanness can be communicated to something or someone else. Note, however, that ritual impurity is not the same thing as a failure of hygiene or of moral behavior, though it can overlap with those categories. The natural circumstances of human life all but ensure that everyone will be ritually unclean at some point. What is important is to keep uncleanness as far away from the center of holiness as possible.
\nThe result was a system of three concentric \u201ccamps\u201d surrounding the Holy of Holies, in both the Tabernacle and the Temples: an area that could be entered only by priests; an area outside this that could be entered by other Levites as well; and outside this an area that could be entered by Israelites who were ritually clean. Each such area is known (from the model presented by the wilderness journey described in the Torah) as a \u201ccamp\u201d or (in the Temple) a \u201ccourt.\u201d The notion of the \u201ccamp\u201d was in fact both more specific and more general than this. The Holy of Holies (though to my knowledge it is never referred to as a \u201ccamp\u201d) was a location that could be entered by no one but the High Priest; at the other end of the scale, both the city of Jerusalem and the land of Israel were understood to be areas of significant, albeit reduced, holiness surrounding the Temple. As with much else in Jewish law, how these notions were expressed in practical terms has differed at various historical periods.<\/p>\n
PESHAT AND DERASH<\/p>\n
The commentators whose work is the focus of this book distinguish between two different kinds of biblical interpretation, called by the Hebrew terms peshat and derash. Peshat can be defined as \u201cthe straightforward sense of a word, phrase, or verse in its biblical context.\u201d It refers, that is, to what the biblical text says \u201cin plain Hebrew.\u201d Derash is a broader category, but it is the opposite of peshat in the sense that it derives meaning from a verse, phrase, word, or sometimes even a single letter abstracted from its biblical context. A derash interpretation need make no contextual sense.
\nThe major work of Jewish biblical interpretation during the first millennium C.E. was of the derash type. Much of it is found in works of rabbinic literature that are referred to as midrash (from the same Hebrew root as the word derash). The second millennium began with a flourishing of the study of peshat, the contextual meaning of the biblical text. A similar trend is found among Christian exegetes in this period; in fact, the challenges to traditional biblical interpretation from Christians and Karaites\u2014that is, nonrabbinic Jews\u2014may have inspired the trend toward peshat among rabbinic Jews.
\nRashi was to a large extent the pathfinder in this process. In a rare few of his comments, he explicitly describes how he grappled with the dissonance between contextual and noncontextual exegesis. \u201cYet Rashi offers many rabbinic interpretations as part of his commentary and it is clear that he found midrash an important source of understanding about the Bible. Unlike works of midrash, however, Rashi\u2019s commentary presents only those derash interpretations that fit the flow of the biblical text. This focus on context as a defining principle of biblical interpretation is Rashi\u2019s great innovation. For Rashi, the straightforward sense of the text does not fully exhaust its meaning, but the two categories of interpretation, peshat and derash, are not contradictory but complementary.
\nThe work of Rashi\u2019s grandson Rashbam, however, makes a conscious and consistent distinction between peshat and derash (though he does not use the latter term). More importantly Rashbam does not merely differentiate between the two, but restricts himself almost entirely to peshat and even defines himself as a pashtan, a peshat interpreter.
\nIbn Ezra, Rashbam\u2019s contemporary, though he defines his commentary as being based strictly on grammar and on logic, is much more uncomfortable in rejecting or ignoring rabbinic tradition. He will sometimes reject a particular rabbinic tradition as being the opinion of a single Sage and not generally accepted. Alternatively, he may say that logic suggests a particular interpretation, but if the rabbinic opinion is a genuine tradition, it must be accepted. (His \u201cif\u201d implies that he would rather not accept it.)
\nNahmanides brings the question full circle, returning to Rashi\u2019s method of integrating rabbinic interpretation into a contextual approach. Since he understood the \u201cTrue\u201d meaning of the text to be a mystical one, the apparent conflict between peshat and derash interpretations that seemed so strong to Rashbam and Ibn Ezra was of little importance to him. It is in his era that the phrase \u201cthe Torah has 70 faces\u201d first becomes current; with it, the first great flourishing of peshat interpretation comes to a close.<\/p>\n
INTERPRETING BIBLICAL LAW<\/p>\n
Jewish law is divided into two categories: (1) biblical, laws that are derived from the Torah (though not necessarily written explicitly there); and (2) rabbinic, laws that were instituted by the Sages as natural extensions of Torah law. (The distinction between these is often a focus of Nahmanides\u2019 comments.)
\nFor purposes of understanding the commentators\u2019 approach to biblical law, the important thing to remember is that (except in the case of Rashbam) law represents an area in which they are most often not independently trying to understand what the text says. Instead, they are matching the biblical text to an already developed system of law described in the Mishnah, the Talmud, and succeeding works of legal interpretation.
\nA large part of their effort is devoted to understanding the meanings of rules that are repeated in the text of the Bible. For example, the command not to \u201cwrong one another\u201d is found in Lev. 25:14 and repeated in almost the same words just a few verses later, in Lev. 25:17. A basic assumption of rabbinic literature is that there is no unnecessary repetition (though occasionally such repetition is understood as merely rhetorical, on the basis that in a particular case \u201cthe Torah is speaking in human language\u201d). If this commandment is repeated, therefore, it must have a different meaning in each case. The difficulty is greater in the case of verses that seem to contradict each other. For example, Exod. 21:6 says that the slave whose ear is pierced must serve his master \u201cfor life,\u201d but Lev. 25:40 says that Jewish slaves serve \u201conly until the jubilee year.\u201d See Ibn Ezra\u2019s comment to Exod. 21:6 for an example of how such cases are resolved. Various rabbinic figures developed systems of rules whose purpose was to formalize the interpretation of biblical law; the most well known of these are the \u201cThirteen Rules of R. Ishmael\u201d that are recited as part of the traditional morning prayers.
\nThere are two common ways in which repetitions are given meaning and contradictions reconciled: either by restricting the historical period to which the law applies or by restricting the scope of the biblical verse. The first method relies on a notion of historical change in the legal situation, though not in the sense that we now view this phenomenon. Rather, it is understood that certain laws and procedures applied only for a limited period, while others were meant to have ongoing relevance. A repetition or (apparent) contradiction is understood by making one of them relevant only on a short-term basis\u2014for example, to the night of the actual exodus from Egypt; to the eight-day period during which Aaron and his sons were being ordained as priests; or to the 40 years of the wilderness wandering\u2014leaving the other to operate on a more permanent basis\u2014on subsequent Passovers; during the ongoing operation of the Tabernacle and Temple; after the Israelites have left the wilderness and settled in the land.
\nThe second method restricts the scope of the biblical verse rather than the historical period to which it applies. For example, one verse is understood to be the warning that such-and-such an act is prohibited, while a second text elsewhere reiterates the prohibition in a way that explains the punishment for violating it. Alternatively, repetitions are taken as discussing varying aspects of the rule. For example, one of the commands not to wrong another is understood to refer to financial wrong, and the other to verbal harassment.
\nThe essential points to remember in reading the comments regarding legal sections of the Torah are, therefore, two:<\/p>\n
\u2192 The commentators generally presume that there is nothing \u201cwasted\u201d in the Torah, that is, no repetition that does not add legal content.
\n\u2192 They presume that the Torah speaks with a unified voice; every law in it is part of a single, coherent system.<\/p>\n
MEDIEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY<\/p>\n
One of the things Ibn Ezra brought with him to the Jews of Christian Europe was the classical philosophic tradition, as it had flourished and developed in the Islamic intellectual world. There, the ideas of Plato and Aristotle had been reinterpreted in the light of a culture that had a scripture and believed in a God who rewarded the observance of strict rules of behavior. Nahmanides, in Christian Spain, was also heir to this tradition.
\nBecause philosophy and science were not yet two separate fields, medieval Jewish philosophy included various ideas that today we would more likely classify as science. Like the ancient Greeks, the medievals understood the material world to be made up of four basic elements: earth, water, fire, and air. Everything in this \u201csublunar\u201d world was a combination of matter and \u201cform\u201d (in something like the Platonic sense of the word, for example, the essential \u201ctable-ness\u201d that allows us to classify certain material objects as tables). Above this sublunar world was that of the \u201cspheres,\u201d where the seven planets (sun, moon, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) and the stars moved. Beyond these spheres in which the heavenly lights move were the immaterial \u201cintelligences\u201d that controlled them. All of these objects and beings owe their existence to God, who is pure intellect, entirely separated from matter; He is their source and their being, just as all numbers both stem from and include the number one. Similar pictures, though varying in important details, underlie the views of Gersonides and Abarbanel.
\nA notable aspect of these beliefs is the place in the medieval worldview of what today we call astrology. Many of the philosophically inclined commentators accepted the notion that the movements of the heavenly spheres\u2014beings, in their view\u2014determined the fate of people on earth. This view is found in the Talmud as well. But from a religious perspective it was understood that the astrological fates were not inexorable, but could be altered by God at will. God does not disrupt the system (which after all was created by Him), but He does save those who worship Him properly from its ill effects.<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES\u2019 MYSTICISM<\/p>\n
Although the mystical strain in Judaism goes back at least to the beginning of the Common Era, If not before, Jewish mysticism as we know it today dates back to the publication of the Zohar in Spain at the end of the 13th century, in the same cultural world as, and very shortly after the death of, Nahmanides. The latter\u2019s understanding of the Torah was very heavily shaped by his involvement in the Jewish mystical thought of 13th-century Spain. He therefore supplemented his discussions of the straightforward meaning of the text, and of rabbinic analyses of its content, with an explanation \u201caccording to the way of Truth.\u201d According to a midrash he cites in the introduction to his comments on Genesis, the Torah existed before the creation of the world in letters of black fire on white fire. Nahmanides takes this midrash one step further, suggesting that the essential text of the Torah consists of a variety of names of God, including the \u201cGreat Name\u201d of 72 letters. Because the original Torah had no spaces between the letters, it could be read not only as the text whose \u201cpeshat\u201d was interpreted by Rashi, but also as a series of divine names and (potentially) in an infinite number of other ways.
\nIt is, however, the multiple names for the divine in the Torah that seem to be the key to understanding Nahmanides\u2019 mystical approach. For him, the single, unique, infinite God somehow manifests Himself in the material world in a number of different forms with different characteristics. Even the different names for God in the \u201cordinary\u201d text of the Torah indicate (as it were) different \u201cpersonalities\u201d of God interacting, in different situations, with Moses and the Israelites.
\nMuch of what Nahmanides says on the mystical level is obscure; he clearly believed that this deeper level of understanding was reserved for only a few. (Note his comment to Exod. 33:12, where Nahmanides says of Ibn Ezra that \u201cHis fine intelligence comprehended well.\u2026 But he was not able to understand the Truth, for he had never been taught it and did not acquire it independently by prophecy.\u201d) As with Nahmanides\u2019 discussions of rabbinic texts, I have not always included his kabbalistic discussions in full. But I have tried to present what is included in such a way that, even if the ideas are difficult or obscure, the words are clear.<\/p>\n
BIBLICAL HEBREW<\/p>\n
Biblical Hebrew is a much more inflected language than is English. In English, an adjective never changes its form, but Hebrew adjectives change slightly depending on whether they describe a single person or more than one and whether those being described are male or female. Verbs change, too: English has \u201cI am, you are, he is,\u201d but Hebrew has a much greater variety of such differences, based not only on singular versus plural and masculine versus feminine, but also on whether the action is being performed by the speaker or \u201cfirst\u201d person, by the addressee or \u201csecond\u201d person, or by some \u201cthird\u201d person who is neither of the first two.
\nAs is true for Aramaic, Arabic, and the other Semitic languages to which it is related, almost all Hebrew words can be conceived of as being \u201crooted\u201d in an abstract series of consonants\u2014almost always three of them\u2014that refer to a particular concept. For example, the \u201croot\u201d KTB has to do with writing, and the Hebrew words that are derived from it, according to the standard rules of the language, all relate to that core meaning: miktab, the act of writing; Ketubim, the (sacred) Writings; katab, he wrote; katub, it is written; and so on. In addition, verbs may fall into a number of different \u201cconjugations,\u201d or patterns, where the pattern as a whole modifies the meaning of the root: akal (in the simple or Qal pattern) means \u201che ate,\u201d but he\u2019ekil (in the causative or Hiphil pattern) means \u201che caused [someone] to eat,\u201d that is, \u201che fed someone.\u201d A change in vowels so slight that it is no longer pronounced can completely change the meaning of a word: z\u0101k\u0101r (where both a vowels are marked by the \u201ckamatz\u201d symbol) means \u201cmasculine\u201d or \u201cmale,\u201d while z\u0101kar (where only the first a vowel is a kamatz) means \u201che remembered.\u201d
\nThis system was only just beginning to be worked out in the time of Rashi and Rashbam. It was much further advanced among the Jews of the Islamic world from which Ibn Ezra came, because the same work was being done in Arabic, which greatly resembles Hebrew. Ibn Ezra seems to have taken it as part of his mission to set the Jews of Christian Europe straight about Hebrew grammar. I have omitted most of the grammatical discussions, but have retained such comments when the commentators disagree, or when a precise grammatical detail illuminates a larger point.<\/p>\n
THE JEWISH CALENDAR<\/p>\n
The calendar used in the Bible, which is the basis for the discussions by our commentators of when various events occurred, is the same still used by the Jews (though during the biblical period older names for the months were replaced by the Babylonian ones used today). The months, in order, with the secular months to which they usually correspond, are:
\nNisan\u2014March\/April
\nIyar\u2014April\/May
\nSivan\u2014May\/June
\nTammuz\u2014June\/July
\nAv\u2014July\/August
\nElul\u2014August\/September
\nTishrei\u2014September\/October
\n\u1e24eshvan\u2014October\/November
\nKislev\u2014November\/December
\nTevet\u2014December\/January
\nShevat\u2014January\/February
\nAdar\u2014February\/March
\nThough the New Year festival occurs at the beginning of Tishrei, Nisan is understood to be the first month, based on Exod 12:2. Each Jewish month begins with the new moon. Since 12 lunar months equal 354 days, the months would shift rather rapidly through the seasons of the solar year (as does Ramadan in the Islamic calendar) if it were not for the fact that Passover must fall in the spring. This is achieved by adding a \u201cleap month,\u201d Adar II, seven times every 19 years, just before Nisan, so that Passover is delayed from winter until spring.<\/p>\n
RESOURCES FOR FURTHER STUDY<\/p>\n
Edward L. Greenstein, \u201cMedieval Bible Commentators,\u201d in Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts, ed. Barry Holtz (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 213\u201342, is an excellent introduction to the topic.
\nLouis Jacobs, Jewish Biblical Exegesis (New York: Behrman House, 1973), has selections from a wide range of commentators along with historical and biographic introductions. Criminally, it\u2019s out of print\u2014find it in a library.<\/p>\n
Those who are ready to use the Hebrew Miqra\u2019ot Gedolot will want to look at two editions. One is Torat Hayyim, published by Mossad Ha-Rav Kook (Jerusalem) but widely available in Jewish bookstores in the United States; it has completely reset the comments of the four major commentators in our volume in standard Hebrew type (as opposed to the \u201cRashi script\u201d in which they have been most commonly found up until now); the comments of Hizkuni and Sforno (and those few comments of Saadia that we still have) are found here as well. The Ha-Keter edition of the Miqra\u2019ot Gedolot (published by Bar-Ilan University Press) has not covered Leviticus as of this writing. Genesis and Exodus are currently available, as are Joshua through Ezekiel and Psalms. The Ha-Keter edition also includes the comments of Joseph Bekhor Shor, David Kimhi, and Gersonides. More importantly, it provides new editions of all the commentators, based on the most careful analysis of all available manuscripts that has yet been done. Both Ha-Keter and Torat Hayyim naturally include Onkelos\u2019s Aramaic translation (the \u201cTargum\u201d).<\/p>\n
OTHER ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS<\/p>\n
RASHI<\/p>\n
Pentateuch with Rashi\u2019s Commentary, trans. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann in collaboration with A. Blashki and L. Joseph (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co.)
\nThe Metsudah Chumash\/Rashi, a new linear translation by Avrohom Davis; Rashi translation by Avrohom Kleinkaufman (Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV Publishing House, 1994\u201397)
\nThe Torah: With Rashi\u2019s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated, by Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg et al. (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1994)\u2014also available in a handy pocket-sized edition<\/p>\n
RASHBAM<\/p>\n
Rashbam\u2019s Commentary on Leviticus and Numbers: An Annotated Translation, ed. and trans. Martin I. Lockshin, Brown Judaic Studies 330 (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2001)<\/p>\n
IBN EZRA<\/p>\n
Ibn Ezra\u2019s Commentary on the Pentateuch: Leviticus (Va\u2019Yikra), trans. and annotated H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver (New York: Menorah Publishing Co., 2004)
\nThe Commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch, vol. 3, Leviticus, trans. Jay F. Schachter (Hoboken: Ktav, 1986)<\/p>\n
NAHMANIDES<\/p>\n
Ramban (Nahmanides): Commentary on the Torah, trans. and annotated C. Chavel (Brooklyn: Shilo Publishing House, 1973)
\nThe Torah: With Ramban\u2019s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated\u2014the Leviticus volume is not available as of this writing, but promised (from Mesorah Publications) for March 2010<\/p>\n
The quotation from Maimonides\u2019 Guide of the Perplexed in Nahmanides\u2019 comment to Lev. 6:16 is from the English translation of Shlomo Pines, \u00a9 1963 by the University of Chicago.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Leviticus 25:1 ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS \u2666 Why are we suddenly told that the following commandments were given \u201con Mount Sinai\u201d (v. 1)? Were not all the commandments given there? RASHI On Mount Sinai. What does the sabbatical year have to do with Mount Sinai? Were not all the commandments given there? But just as the overall … <\/p>\n