Leviticus · Chapter 18

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Speak with the children of Israel and say to them: I am Hashem your God.

אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — I am He Who spoke on Mount Sinai “I am the Lord thy God" and Whose kingship you then accepted; now, therefore, accept My decrees! Rabbi Judah han-Nasi said: It was manifest and known to Him that in the days of Ezra they would ultimately revolt against restricting sexual relations, He therefore came to them with a decree emphasized by the words: "I am The Lord your God" — understand well Who it is that imposes this decree upon you, — the Judge (אלהיכם) Whose function it is to punish but Who is certain also to give a reward ('ה) (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 1).

SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Since this chapter deals with [the laws of] prohibited sexual intercourse which apply equally to all Israel, therefore He said only, Speak unto the children of Israel, and did not specify the priests but included them together. Therefore He said at first, I am the Eternal your G-d, just as He did in the Ten Commandments [which He began with the words, I am the Eternal thy G-d]. And the meaning of the verse, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: I am the Eternal your G-d, is as if He said, “Say unto them in My Name, ‘I am the Eternal your G-d.’” Similarly, Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them: Ye shall be holy, for I the Eternal your G-d am holy, [means: “say unto them in My Name, ‘Ye shall be holy'”].It is possible that the reason [why the verse does not say: “this is what G-d commanded,” is not because it means: “say unto them in My Name” as explained above, but] is rather as follows: When Moses came out from before the Eternal without the veil [on his face], and he came out, and spoke unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded, he did not need to say to them: “Thus said the Eternal,” for it was known to them that it was His spirit that spoke through him [Moses] and His word was upon his tongue, and that he did not speak in his own name. Similarly, in many places in the Book of Deuteronomy it is stated in the same way, such as: And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments, which I command you this day … that I will give the rain of your Land … And I will give grass in thy fields, and [it is known that] Moses is not the one who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields, and makes the grass grow in the fields, but it is G-d, blessed be He [that does these things]. Similarly it is said, But the Eternal hath not given you a heart to know … And I have led you forty years in the desert … Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am the Eternal your G-d. The meaning of the expression to love the Eternal your G-d [which is stated in the third person, when that same verse begins in the first person, And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments], has already been explained.

"I am Hashem your God" — on this condition I will be your God.

,דבד…. ואמדת כמעשה ארץ מצדים, "speak ….and say:…according to the doings in the land of Egypt, etc." We need to know why our verse repeated the instruction to Moses by writing both דבר and ואמרת. Besides, what news does our verse convey by having G'd describe Himself as "I am the Lord your G'd?" Was there anyone who did not know this as yet? Besides, what is the Torah's intention with the unusual introduction כמעשה? If the object of the word כמעשה was not known how would we know to what these מצות addressed themselves? This is true both for the מעשה which was presumed to be the norm in Egypt as well as the מעשה which was presumed to be the norm in the land of Canaan at that time. The entire paragraph from verse 2 through 5 is extremely vague. Our sages in Torat Kohanim said that the Torah compared practices rampant in Egypt with practices rampant in the land of Canaan. According to their interpretation, why did the Torah have to repeat the commandment? If all the Torah wanted to tell us was that the people of both these countries committed the same kind of sins, why did the Torah have to phrase this in such a cumber-some manner? Besides, why did the Torah have to add the gratuitous remark אשר ישבתם בה, "that you have dwelled amongst," when speaking of Egypt? Who did not know that the Jewish people used to reside in Egypt? Is there then another country called "Egypt?" We can ask a similar question concerning the land of Canaan concerning which the Torah writes: "which I am about to bring you to?" What other land of Canaan is there? Even assuming that there was another country called Canaan, one we have never heard of, how would we know anything about their practices? It appears to us that the fact that the commandment mentioned here appears next to the various laws about incest as well as the fact that in verse 24 we are told not to defile ourselves by transgressing any of these commandments seeing that the nations mentioned have defiled themselves by ignoring these sexual mores, it is clear that the commandment introduced by the word כמעשה refers to sexual mores. Once we keep this in mind we have no problem explaining the wording of the Torah here. It is well known that a Jew is able to fulfil all the commandments G'd has demanded of His people without suffering undue hardship and that he can develop a tendency to do so willingly. The only exception to this rule is the commandment to refrain from certain sexual unions. The נפש, animalistic life-force within man, exercises a powerful influence over man urging him to disregard those commandments. The Israelite can successfully battle this urge only if he a) controls his visual contact with the opposite sex and b) if he controls his fantasizing. If a person fails to control these two senses he will fall victim to temptation. If a person does not limit his visual contact with the opposite sex, the fact that he does not think about it does not guarantee that he will not be aroused through visual con...

ואמרת אליהם אני ה' אלו-היכם, “and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your G’d.’” According to Nachmanides the plain meaning here is that the words ואמרת אליהם mean: “say to them in My name.” A Midrashic approach (Sifra Acharey 13,1-3): “the words אני ה' אלו-היכם mean: “I am the Lord your G’d who has told you when you stood at Mount Sinai: ‘I am the Lord your G’d.’ At that time you accepted Me as G’d and all the authority which this implies. Now I am asking you to accept My decrees.” Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi said that it was quite clear to G’d that many years later (in the era of Ezra) the Israelites would have an urge to contravene this legislation totally and to intermarry with all kinds of partners forbidden to them under Torah law. This is why G’d introduced this legislation now as a Divine decree. By repeating His status as the Jewish people’s G’d and lawgiver, the Torah implies that just as G’d pays a reward to those who honour G’d’s laws, He will exact retribution from those who willfully flout this legislation. A kabbalistic approach: There is not a single word missing here. The Torah informs us that the attribute י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. the tetragrammaton, known to the Israelites as their G’d refers to Himself as “אני” on occasion. Examples of this are found in Exodus 25,9 as well as in Exodus 16,26.

דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel;” Nachmndes points out that seeing that the legislation following includes all segments of the people equally, the priests are not mentioned separately. The Torah introduces this chapter with the words: אני ה' אלוקיכם, as if to say: “when you speak to them tell them that you are speaking in My name.” There had been no need to spell this out more clearly seeing that whenever Moses came out of the Tabernacle without wearing his veil around his head, whatever he was going to say were instructions he had just received from Hashem, and he did not have to add the words: “thus Hashem has said.” Everybody knew that the spirit of the Lord was speaking out of Moses’ throat. There are many similar examples in the Book of Deuteronomy, paragraphs beginning with the words: והיה אם שמוע תשמעו אל מצותי, “it will be when you will surely listen, etc.,” when nobody misunderstood thinking that Moses was speaking about commandments issued by him instead of Hashem. The people were well aware that the promise of rainfall, to quote but one example, was not meant to mean that Moses would command the rain to fall. Ibn Ezra comments that the reason why the Torah, after having previously spoken about the demons, begins its admonition to the people not to walk in the footsteps of the Egyptians, is that these Egyptians had made a practice of offering sacrifices to these שערים, the demons. The reason that the practices of the people of Canaan were also singled out here as something the people of Israel should not try to emulate, was that these people were steeped very deeply in sexually perverted conduct, עריות. Our sages say that the Egyptians were no less guilty of sexually licentious conduct than were the Canaanites.

After the deeds of the people of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt, you shall not do; and after the deeds of the people of the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do; and in their customs you shall not walk.

כמעשה ארץ מצרים AFTER THE DEEDS OF THE LAND OF EGYPT… [SHALL YE NOT DO] — This tells us that the deeds of the Egyptians and the Canaanites were more corrupt than those of all other nations, and that the district of Egypt in which the Israelites had resided (אשר ישבתם בה) was even more corrupt than all the rest of Egypt (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 3). אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה [AND AFTER THE DEEDS OF THE LAND OF CANAAN] WHITHER I BRING YOU [SHALL YE NOT DO] — This again tells us that those Canaanitish clans whom Israel subdued were more corrupt than all the others of them (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 4). ובחקתיהם לא תלכו NEITHER SHALL YE WALK IN THEIR ORDINANCES — What has Scripture left unsaid when it spoke of the deeds of the Egyptians and Canaanites that it felt compelled to add ובחקתיהם לא תלכו But by these latter words it refers to their social customs — things which have assumed for them the character of a law as, for instance, the frequenting of theaters and race-courses. Rabbi Meir, however, said: These (חקתיהם) refer to the "ways of the Amorites" (superstitious practices) which our Rabbis have enumerated (Shabbat 67a; Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 8; cf. also Tosefta Shabbat 7).

According to the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, the Scriptural command, After the doings of the land of Egypt … shall ye not do, is a reference to [the practice of sacrificing to] the demons mentioned above [in 17:7]; and after the doings of the land of Canaan … shall ye not do is an allusion to the forbidden sexual relationships, in which the Canaanites were very bad and sinful, as He stated at the end of this section, For all these abominations have the men of the Land done. And in the opinion of our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim, the Egyptians were also addicted to carnality, in all forms of the forbidden relationships, and with males and cattle. This is the truth, [as Scripture states] that there were also sodomites in the Land, referring [to the abominations of the nations] which were there from the beginning till now. Scripture further testifies concerning them, the Egyptians, thy neighbors, great of flesh, and it further says, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses, the term “flesh” being a euphemism [for the sexual organ]. Similarly, in the expressions, his flesh ran with his issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood [the term “flesh” is an allusion to the sexual organ].

"And in their statutes you shall not walk" — so that a person should not habituate himself to walking in this way until it becomes a fixed practice for him. "And the deeds of the land of Egypt" — this refers to the ordinances. And the proof is: "My laws you shall do" — these are the ones written in the Book of the Covenant, expounded in the parashah of "These are the laws" (Mishpatim).

כמעשה ארץ מצרים וכמעשה ארץ כנען, Rabbi Yossi the Galilean, raised the point that seeing the Torah had compared the cultures of Egypt to that of the Canaanites, and that of the Canaanites to that of the Egyptians, [why were we commanded to wipe out the Canaanites and to replace them in their former homeland, while the Torah did not command us to destroy the Egyptians and their culture? Ed.] The Canaanites were granted to live on their land for 47 years longer than it took for G-d to punish the Egyptians as we know that Chevron was founded seven years earlier than its counterpart Tzoan in Egypt? (Compare Numbers 13,22) The answer to his question is that they had the merit of burying Avraham in the cave of Machpelah going for them. (Sifra) Our paragraph was written at this juncture because the satyrs to whom the Egyptians sacrificed and whom the Israelites while there copied, have been mentioned immediately before this paragraph.

“Like the practice of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt, etc.” The Torah mentioned, in which you dwelt and where I am bringing you, to add something. Presumably, Joseph selected for his brothers and his father’s household an area that was not so morally corrupt, so that future generations would not learn from their [the Egyptians’] practices. Similarly, presumably the Holy One, Blessed be He, selected for Israel a place that was not so corrupt, so they would not learn from them [the Canaanites], as it is said Little by little I will drive them out from before you (Exodus 23:30). Before He would drive them all out, there was concern that the Israelites might learn from their practices. Therefore, He said that even like the practices [of the Egyptians in that area] you shall not do, and all the more so regarding the other abominations of Egypt where you did not dwell, and all the more so regarding other nations. But according to Rashi’s interpretation, which explains exactly the opposite, it is difficult: Would it make sense to say that specifically like the practices of those among whom they dwelt and where I am bringing you — the most corrupt of all — they should not do, but like the practices of those not so corrupt, they may do? God forbid to say such a thing! Rather, the Torah mentions this to add something, so that Israel would not have room to err and say: Since we were settled in the land of Goshen, surely the reason was because their practices were not corrupt at all; and since the Holy One, Blessed be He, is bringing us to this land, surely their practices are not corrupt. And as for why they [the Canaanites] were expelled from their land, it was because they dwelt in a land that wasn’t theirs, as the Canaanites had conquered the land from the descendants of Shem. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, needed to inform that also their practices were corrupt, and even if not as much as others, nevertheless, their practices contained enough disgrace and anger [to warrant punishment], and all the more so regarding the others. And from the fact that they are not combined, and “you shall not do” is stated twice. We can say that each sin is itemized by itself, and Scripture criticizes Israel for seeking to establish permanent settlement in Egypt, as I explained above at the end of Parshat Vayigash (47:27) on the verse And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen. It speaks of Israel’s guilt, and God blamed them for seeking to establish permanent settlement in a place where God had told them they would be sojourners and not residents. They did all this because they were attached to the idols of Egypt, as it says in Ezekiel (20:5-8), And I made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, etc., but they rebelled against Me, etc., and they did not forsake the idols of Egypt, etc. Similarly, Rashi explained in Parshat Bo (10:23) that there were wicked people in that generation who did not want to leave Egypt and they died during the three days of darkness. Regarding this, it is stated here, You shall not do according to the practices of the land of Egypt — like those practices that you did in the land of Egypt. And what was the evil practice that you did? In which you dwelt — that you sought permanent settlement there because your souls desired their idols and their abominations. You shall not do such things again — do not seek permanent settlement among a rebellious people who walk in a way that is not good, lest you learn from their deeds, as happened to you in Egypt. “And like the practice of the land of Canaan” — This means that He is accusing Israel of rejecting the Holy Land, which was beloved by the patriarchs, but they rejected it to the extent that the Holy One, blessed be He, had to bring them there against their will, not with their consent. This is the meaning of like the practice of the land of Canaan — like that deed that you did in the land of Canaan. And what is this deed? Which I am bringing you there — for your eyes see that I am bringing you there against your will. For in Elim they said, If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt (Exodus 16:3), and the spies said, Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt (Numbers 14:4). And so our Sages said (Bamidbar Rabbah 21:10), “The women cherished the Land, but the men hated it.” And so the Holy One, blessed be He, had to lead them by way of the wilderness at the Sea of Reeds so that they would not return to Egypt. From all this, there is proof that they rejected the Holy Land, which was chosen from the days of the patriarchs as a place of holiness and purity, and where most of the Torah’s commandments are dependent on the land. Yet Israel rejected all these things, until the Holy One, blessed be He, had to bring them there against their will and carry them on eagles’ wings, as a nurse carries an infant, to this place, and through the circuitous route of the wilderness so that they would have no opportunity to return. Do not do so anymore, but go willingly to the place that God has spoken of, for this is the place prepared for keeping all God’s judgments and statutes. He gives a reason for the first statement, why He said they should not seek permanent settlement in the impure land of Egypt, so that they would not learn to do their abominations. Regarding this, He said, And in their statutes you shall not walk. And for the latter statement, where He urged them to go to the Holy Land in order to fulfill the commandments that are dependent on the land, He said, My judgments you shall do, etc., for these are the judgments of the God of the land.

My ordinances you shall do, and My statutes you shall keep, to walk in them; I am Hashem your God.

את משפטי תעשו YE SHALL DO MY JUDGMENTS — Matters prescribed in the Torah which are in conformity with the human feeling of justice such as one feels ought to be ordained if they had not been already ordained by the Torah. ואת חקתי תשמרו AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES — matters which are decrees of the King (promulgated without any reason being stated) against which the evil inclination raises objections: "Why should we observe them and against which also the nations of the world raise objections, as e. g., the prohibition of eating swine’s flesh, of wearing clothes of a mixture of wool and linen, the purgatory power of "water mingled with the ashes of the Red Heifer" (טהרת מי חטאת) — therefore it is stated: "I", the Lord, have enacted this for you — you are not at liberty to evade the obligation (Yoma 67b). ללכת בהם TO WALK IN THEM — do not free yourselves from their environment, i.e. that you must not say, I have acquired Jewish wisdom, now I will go and acquire the wisdom of the other peoples of the world in order to walk in their ways.

MINE ORDINANCES SHALL YE DO. “These are matters prescribed in the Torah which, even if they were not prescribed, one would know that they ought to be prescribed.” Thus the language of Rashi. And in the Torath Kohanim it is stated: “These are matters written in the Torah which, even if they were not written, would deserve to have been written, such as robberies, forbidden sexual relationships, idolatry, bloodshed and blasphemy.”Now by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the term mishpatai (Mine ordinances) is to be understood in its simple sense. It is a reference to the laws stated in the section of V’eileh Hamishpatim (And these are the ordinances) and in the whole Torah. Therefore He states here, which if a man do, he shall live by them, as these laws were given so that man should live, and for the development of countries, and peace among men, so that no one should cause harm to his fellowman or kill him. The prophet Ezekiel likewise mentioned many times with reference to these mishpatim (ordinances), which if a man do, he shall live by them, while of the Sabbath he says, to be a sign between Me and them. Similarly in the Book of Nehemiah it says, Thine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them. But our Rabbis have said: “He shall live by them — but not die by them. This teaches that danger to life overrides the Sabbath laws and [all] the commandments.” And according to the Midrashic interpretation it means: “He shall live by them — in the World to Come. Should you say it means that he shall live in this world, will he not in the end die!” And if so, the expression which if a man do, he shall live by them refers back [not only to the mishpatim (ordinances), as we explained before, but] also to chukothai [“My statutes,” those laws for which no reason is given, but the observance of which also assures one eternal life].Know that man’s [reward in] life for the observance of the commandments is in accordance with his preparation for them. For he who fulfills the commandments not for their own sake, but in order to receive a reward, will be rewarded on account of them in this world with longevity, riches, possessions, and honor. It is concerning this [kind of observance of the laws of the Torah] that it is said, in her left hand are riches and honor, which the Rabbis interpreted to mean: “to those that stand on the left of it [i.e., to those who engage in the observance of the Torah not for its own sake], there are material riches and honor.” Similarly, those who engage in the observance of the commandments so as to merit by them reward in the World to Come, these being the people who serve G-d out of fear [of punishment], will be found worthy on account of their intention to be saved from the judgments that will come upon the wicked, and their souls shall abide in joyfulness [in life eternal]. But those who engage in the observance of the commandments out of love, as is right and proper, together with worldly occupation, similar ...

"I am Hashem your God" — then I will be your God.

את משפטי תעשו, "You shall carry out My ordinances, etc." In view of the fact that the entire chapter deals only with regulations about forbidden sexual unions, what does the Torah mean by referring to "My statutes and My ordinances?" Besides, what does the Torah mean with the words ללכת בהם, "to walk in them?" I believe we may explain this in connection with what we wrote that thinking about the subject of sex increases one's lust at the expense of the power of the will to dominate one's decision-making process. The Torah was afraid to tell us to distance ourselves from the subject of sex absolutely in order that we would not refrain from fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply, or to marry the widow of a brother who died without children, and other related commandments. Taking the warnings of the Torah too much to heart would result in something counterproductive to G'd's "statutes and ordinances." Therefore the Torah introduced the subject by first repeating the need to carry out G'd's ordinances, i.e. את משפטי תעשו, referring to the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply, before warning us to observe the prohibitions about to be legislated in that context, i.e. ואת חקותי תשמרו. Sukkah 52 describes man as possessing a small organ which becomes more hungry in direct proportion to the amount of food it is provided with, whereas it feels satisfied with less and less if one starves it. The organ is, of course, man's reproductive organ. Therefore G'd had to tell us to walk in His ordinances, i.e. to perform the basic commandment of procreation, populating earth, etc.. At the same time, and while fulfilling those ordinances, we must be careful also to observe G'd's statutes, i.e. the limitations legislated in this chapter as to who we are allowed to mate with. Alternatively, we may view the entire legislation about forbidden sexual unions as a form of mental preparation for the performance of the positive commandment to procreate in the proper spirit. If the Torah had not introduced the whole subject matter by asking us to carry out the various positive ordinances and by refraining from the various statutes so that we would be mentally prepared to conform with G'd's wishes, we would have considered indulgence in the sexual act as something which contaminates the soul and body of the human being. We would have thought that it is so fraught with both spiritual and physical impurity that it contaminates each and every organ of a human being as well as all his faculties. As a result, we would have considered ourselves as unable to fulfil any of the Torah's positive commandments properly unless we abstained from all sexual activity. We would have considered ourselves as in the class of the wicked whose מצוה-performance Assaph describes in Psalms 50,16 as: "who are you to recite My laws and to mouth the terms of My covenant?" Assaph implies that G'd is not interested in anyone performing His commandments unless such a person has at...

You shall perform My judgments and observe My ordinances. Here, the statutes [mishpatim] are mentioned before the ordinances [chukim], but later the order is reversed when it says and you shall observe My ordinances and My judgments. This is because the first verse speaks about reward in this world, as it says to walk in them, for in this world a person is called a “walker,” as he moves from one level to another, as it is written: I will give you pathways among these who stand (Zechariah 3:7), for angels are called “standers” since they remain at one level, but humans are called “walkers.” Similarly, in the World to Come, humans are also called “sitters,” as our Sages of blessed memory said (Berakhot 17a): “The righteous sit with their crowns on their heads.” “Sitting” is analogous to “standing” because one sits in rest, having already acquired all his perfection. Regarding the reward in this world, the judgments — which are intellectually understandable — are mentioned before the ordinances — whose reasons are not revealed — to tell you that not only will you merit to walk before God in the lands of the living by virtue of the judgments [mishpatim], for your eyes see their benefit, as without their fear [of punishment society could not function], but even more so, by fulfilling the ordinances [chukim], even though their reasons are not revealed, you will nonetheless merit through them to walk before God. However, regarding the verse “and live by them,” which Rashi interprets as referring to life in the World to Come, he reversed the order in a manner of “not only this but also that.” For in fulfilling the ordinances, it is obvious that you will merit life in the World to Come. Since you do not perceive their benefit, it is clear that all your actions are for the sake of Heaven, to fulfill the commandments of your Creator. But even in fulfilling the judgments, for which you have already received your reward in this world, and there might be reason to say that you fulfill them for your own benefit since the world’s existence depends on them, nevertheless, you will also merit life in the World to Come through them. And why? Because I am the Lord — for you fulfill them because I, the Lord, have commanded you, as our Sages said (Torat Kohanim, Kedoshim 128): “One should not say, ‘I do not desire to eat pork and my soul abhors it,’ but rather, ‘I desire to eat it, but the Holy One, blessed be He, has decreed against it, etc.’” And therefore we find that He mentions the great reward stored away for the righteous especially in relation to the ordinances, as it is written: Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your ordinances, and I will keep it to the end (Psalms 119:33). I have inclined my heart to perform Your ordinances forever, to the end (Psalms 119:112). And it concludes in Yalkut Parashat Eikev (Remez 446): How great is Your goodness that You have stored up for those who fear You — this refers to the reward for the “light” commandments. And how do he know this? Because people tend to tread on the “light” commandments with their heels, and Satan and the nations mock them, saying, “What is this commandment to you?” And this is found especially with the ordinances whose reasons are not revealed and which conflict with human understanding, as the nations mock them. Therefore it says: How great is Your goodness that You have stored up for those who fear You, that You have wrought for those who take refuge in You against mankind (Psalms 31:20) — meaning, regarding matters that conflict with human understanding, which are the “light” commandments. And [the Torah] always mentions the language of “guarding” [shemirah] in relation to ordinances [chukkot], because anything that has those who would destroy it requires extra protection, as explained above in Parshat Bo on the verse and you shall guard this service (Exodus 12:25), which refers to the wicked son who seeks to destroy the service. Similarly, this “guarding” mentioned regarding the ordinances is against people who question the ordinances.

את משפטי תעשו, “carry out My laws, etc.” Rashi says that whenever the Torah refers to G’d’s law as משפטי, what He means is that if He had not spelled out these laws in His Torah, the people themselves should have made laws like this in order to secure the continued existence of civilised society. This is why the Torah adds the otherwise superfluous words אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, ”which mankind is to observe and live by them.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the laws described as משפטים, are the ones written in Exodus chapters 21–24 that comprise in the main inter personal relationships known as מצות בין אדם לחברו. This is why the Torah adds the rider אשר יעשה אדם וחי בהם, ”that man is to carry out in order to live by these laws.” Failure to observe these laws results in anarchy. Our sages interpret the words וחי בהם as a promise that he who observes these laws will enjoy life in the world to come. In that event the words would refer to observing את חוקותי תשמורו, “to observe My statutes,” i.e. the ones whose rationale escapes us, for observance of which the Torah holds out he promise of success beyond this world, seeing that observing social justice is self fulfilling in our terrestrial universe, and does not need the assurance of וחי בהם. We must realize that when the Torah speaks of חיים, “life,” it does so on different occasions in different contexts, i.e. ”life on different levels” as is appropriate to the context in which the word appears. את משפטי תעשו, “you are to carry out My laws, etc.;” the reason why the משפטים were mentioned first is that once we observe these commandments i.e. performing justice tempered wit mercy, משפט וצדקה, it is easier to also perform the statutes which are basically acts of obedience and faith in the Creator.

You shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, which a person shall do and live by them — to everlasting life; I am Hashem.

'ושמרתם את חקתי וגו YE SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY ORDINANCES — [This is not a mere repetition of v. 4 but is intended] to include other details of the laws mentioned in this chapter which Scripture does not expressly mention. Another explanation is: Scripture makes this repetition in order to attach the commands of “observing" (שמירה) and "performing" (עשיה) to the חוקים, and the commands of שמירה and עשיה to the משפטים, for in v. 4 it uses the term עשיה only in connection with the משפטים, and that of שמירה only with reference to the חוקים (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10). וחי בהם means, THAT HE SHALL LIVE THROUGH THEM in the world to come (eternal life). For if you say it means that he shall live in this world, is it not a fact that in the end he must die! (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10; cf. also Targ. Onkelos) 'אני ה I AM THE LORD, Who am faithful to pay you your reward (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10).

The meaning of "You shall keep My statutes and My laws" — to make clear that they are life to those who perform them in both worlds, for one who understands their secret: the Living One of the universe will give him life and he shall never die. Therefore it is written "I am Hashem your God," as I have explained it.

ושמרתם את חקותי, "You shall keep My statutes, etc." Why did the Torah have to repeat in this verse almost word for word the same directive it had written in the previous verse? Perhaps we may best explain this on the basis of Sanhedrin 74 where the Talmud explains the words וחי בהן, "so that he may live by them," as meaning "so that he will not die by them." If a Jew is forced to violate one of G'd's commandments, he should rather violate such a commandment than make a martyr of himself. The Talmud adds that there are three exceptions to this rule, idol-worship, forbidden sexual relations, and killing an innocent person. If a Jew is threatened with death if he does not violate any of these three commandments he must choose death rather than violate any of these commandments. You will observe that in verse 4 no mention is made of וחי בהם, that one should prefer life over martyrdom, whereas in our verse the Torah added the words וחי בהם. It follows that the commandments mentioned in verse 4 are those for which a person must be prepared to martyr himself and to sanctify the name of G'd by laying down his life. Furthermore, when we examine the different nuances in these two verses we will be enlightened further. In verse 4 the Torah writes אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "I am the Lord your G'd," whereas in our verse the Torah only writes: אני השם, "I am the Lord." We may infer from this that the Torah addresses different Jews in the two verses. In one verse the Torah addresses the Jews who fulfil the commandments due to a feeling of love for G'd, whereas in the other verse the Torah addresses Jews who fulfil the commandments due to a fear of punishment should they fail to observe G'd's laws. Sotah 31 has already taught us that the reward for people performing the commandments out of a sense of fear of the Lord extends for up to one thousand generations, whereas the reward for people whose motivation is love for G'd extends for up to two thousand generations. It is quite impossible for a person to attain the level of serving the Lord out of feelings of love until he had first experienced the level of serving the Lord out of a feeling of fear of punishment. This is the mystical dimension of Psalms 118,19: "this is the gate of the Lord, the righteous are able to enter it." In accordance with this, verse 4 addresses itself to people who serve the Lord from a sense of fear, and the Torah writes: את משפטי תעשו, "you are to perform My ordinances, etc., ending with the words "I am the Lord your G'd," the word אלוקיכם being a clear reference to G'd in His capacity of the attribute of Justice. In verse 5, however, when the Torah addresses itself to someone who has already passed the initial stage of serving the Lord out of fear and he serves the Lord out of feelings of love, the Torah no longer has to make mention of the attribute of Justice because the person addressed would not be influenced in his observance by mention of that attribute. The Torah adds the words וחי בה...

וחי בהם, “and live by them;” the implication is that failing to perform the commandments will bring about those people’s deaths, i.e. their souls will be wiped out, their connection to the Jewish nation will cease. (as spelled out more specifically in verse 29 of this chapter.)

אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, “which man shall carry out and live by them.” These words refer to the משפטים, social laws, mentioned in this chapter. It is these laws which ensure that man can function in a civilised manner and maintain his position on earth as the dominant species. We have confirmation of this concept in Proverbs 29,4 where Solomon writes: “a king sustains the land by (social) justice.” A pertinent comment on the words וחי בהם “so that he may live by them,” is made in Yuma 85 where these words are interpreted as: “so that he will not die by them.” This is the origin of the ruling that the Torah’s laws are voided (at least temporarily) when performing any particular one of them clearly leads to the death of the person about to perform them. (compare Maimonides Hilchot Yesodey HaTorah 5,1-3). There are only three commandments violation of which is prohibited even if one has to give up one’s life in order not to violate them. They are: idolatry, immoral sexual relations such as incest, and murder. In all other instances the simple rule is to rather violate the commandment than be killed on account of observing it. However, this rule of violating the commandment rather than be killed on account of it applies only if the threat of death is in private. When one is required to violate a commandment of the Torah in public or be killed one must not violate the commandment in question however trivial a commandment it may appear to be and thereby desecrate the Holy Name of the Lord. This is quite clear from the Talmud Sanhedrin 74. A Midrashic approach (Sifra Acharey 9,10): the words וחי בהם, “so that he may live by them,” refer to eternal life in the hereafter. This is also the view of Onkelos who translates these words as: וייחי בהון חיי עלמא, “so that he will live an eternal life.” The different kinds (categories) of life available for body and soul respectively as a result of the performance of the Torah’s commandments are four in all. The word וחי promises the observant Jew participation in all these four kinds of life. The first type of life granted to those who keep the commandments is the quality of life in store for people who keep the commandments primarily for the reward promised. This type of מצוה-observance is known as “walking on the left,” seeing that the party concerned wants to take advantage of what is written in Proverbs 3,16 that the observance of Torah precepts if intended to result in long life is considered as “walking on the right,” whereas if it is intended to secure for the person performing them material wealth it is considered as “walking on the left.” The second category of מצוה-observance is that by people who intend to secure eternal life for themselves in the hereafter. Even though such people do not perform the commandments for their intrinsic value, i.e. לשמה, the souls of such people do have their wish granted. Concerning the two types of motivations underlying the מצוה-performance just mentioned, the prophet (Isaiah 57,15) has said that fulfillment of the commandments results in G’d “reviving the spirits of the lowly and reviving the heart of the contrite.” The third type of motivation for performing the command-ments of the Torah is that by doing so one wants to express one’s feelings of love for the lawgiver, for the Lord, and one is not concerned at all with any benefit that will accrue to him in this world as a result of doing this. Such people will enjoy both long and happy lives in this world as well as their proper share in the hereafter. Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are models of people who served the Lord out of love and not out of the desire to secure advantages for themselves by doing so. They translated their love for G’d into the way they performed the menial chores of life on earth, be it tending sheep and cattle, engaging in agriculture, or whatever. The fourth category of person observing G’d’s commandments is a person who, in observing G’d’s commandments, does it in such a manner that he thereby negates the physical aspects of life on earth, concentrating all the while only on the transcendental values of life, on the celestial regions. Such people are suitably rewarded in that death has no control over them at all. They return to G’d with their bodies intact as did Chanoch and the prophet Elijah (Compare Nachmanides on the subject, page 100 of his commentary Chavell edition). There are yet another four types of “life” man may merit as a result of מצוה-performance: One is regular life on earth such as the majority of people enjoy who experience no special disabilities in their lives on earth and are in good health. The second category of life on earth is that of people who have recovered from usually terminal sicknesses and near-fatal accidents. Such lives may be compared to vessels which have been reconstructed after having reached what could be considered as the end of their useful existence. We find a description of something like this in Job 33,25: “let his flesh be healthier than in his youth; let him return to his younger days.” The third kind of life is that granted by G’d to the sinner who was slated for death but has repented with the result that G’d grants him an extension of life. This is what the prophet Ezekiel 33,11 speaks of when he said: ”it is not My desire that the wicked shall die but that he turn back from his evil ways and live!” The fourth category of life is life after the resurrection. All of these four categories of life are part of the Torah’s promise וחי בהם that he who observes the commandments of the Torah may qualify for some or all of these lives.

וחי בהם. However, if the Israelite does not observe these statutes the souls violating them deliberately will be cut off from membership in their nation, i.e. will lose their life in the hereafter (verse 29)

Every man — none of you shall draw near to any who is close in flesh to him, to uncover nakedness; I am Hashem.

לא תקרבו NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH TO [ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM] — The intention is to admonish women as well as men (in respect to this general prohibition of unchastity); on this account the plural is used (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 1). 'אני ה I AM THE LORD, who am faithful to pay you your reward (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 13.

NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH TO ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM, TO UNCOVER THEIR NAKEDNESS. The reason for the prohibition of sexual relationships with one’s near of kin is not expressly written [in the Torah]. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim that [this law seeks to inculcate the lessons that] we should limit sexual intercourse, hold it in contempt, and perform it rarely. Now these women which Scripture has forbidden amongst the relatives of one’s wife are forbidden because they are constantly together with him in his house, and the same applies to one’s own relatives [sisters, aunts, and the wife of one’s uncle], who are frequently with him and he is closeted together with them. A similar reason the Rabbi states for all forbidden relations. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already written likewise that since the passion of man’s heart is like that of the animals, it was impossible for Scripture to forbid all females, and therefore it prohibited only those that are available to him at all times. But this is a very weak reason, that Scripture should make a person liable to the punishment of excision in the case of these forbidden relations, just because they are sometimes found together with him, and at the same time permit a man to marry many women, even in the hundreds and thousands! And what harm would there be if a man would marry only his daughter, just as was permitted to the Noachides, or marry two sisters as did our patriarch Jacob? A person also could not do better than to give his daughter in marriage to his elder son, and they would inherit his possessions and multiply and increase in his house, for He created not the earth a waste, He formed it to be inhabited! We have no tradition as to [the reason of] this prohibition of forbidden relationships, but logically it would appear that there is in this matter one of the secrets of creation, which attaches to the soul and is part of the secret of the transmigration [of souls], to which we have already alluded. Know that sexual intercourse is held distant and in contempt in the Torah unless it is for the preservation of the human species, and therefore where there can be no offspring [such as in pederasty or carnal intercourse with beasts], it is forbidden. Similarly, where [the union is such that] the child born therefrom will not have a healthy existence, nor succeed from it, the Torah prohibited such a union. This is the sense of the expressions: el kol ‘sh’eir’ b’saro [literally: to any ‘flesh’ next to his flesh]; for he hath made naked ‘eth sh’eiro’ [literally: his flesh]. Thus the Torah forbade these marriages on account of sh’eir [i.e., because the forbidden relations constitute “flesh” next to one’s own], the term sh’eir being derived from the expression [in the verse], ‘hanish’ar’ (he that is left) in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem. Hence Scripture states, they are ‘sha’arah’ (near kinswomen); it is lewdness, meaning to say, “these are not marriages...

"Any man, any man" — every single man. And because it did not say "from the house of Israel," we do not exempt the sojourner from committing one of the abominations mentioned in our land, lest he defile the land. "To any of his close flesh" — this is a general term for all the forbidden relations, and afterward the text specifies them. R. Aharon the Priest said that its meaning is to prohibit the emission of seed in vain. "You shall not draw near" — a euphemism for lying [with], as in "And I drew near to the prophetess" (Isa. 8:3); and "draw near" is close in meaning to "do not approach a woman." "Nakedness" — a shameful thing that is exposed and needs to be covered. The meaning of "I am Hashem" — that Hashem loves the one who is set apart to serve Him and heed His word, and Sinai is the witness, as is also the primordial one, and this is the secret of man. Because the inclination of the human heart is like that of the beasts, it is not fitting to forbid all females; accordingly, He has forbidden those who are always present with him. And in the parashah of Ki Tetzei Mahaneh (Deut. 23) I will reveal to you a hidden and sealed secret. For whoever defiles himself is distanced from the received Name of Hashem — therefore He mentioned "I am Hashem."

איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו; logic would suppose that offspring from genetically related parents would result in superior human beings, evenly matched ones, as for instance in the case of Amram and Yocheved, where the marital union of aunt and nephew produced three outstanding human beings such as Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. In fact, the Talmud Yevamot 62,63 praises someone who marries his niece by quoting Isaiah 58,9 who calls down a special blessing from heaven on such a person. [“Then when you call, the Lord will answer, when you cry, He will say: ‘Here I am.’”] The considerations I have just mentioned are valid only if both parties to such a marital union are motivated exclusively by the desire to carry out G’d’s will as they perceive it. However, truth to tell, this occurs in only rare cases. The vast majority of people, when choosing their mate, are driven by the desire to gratify their libido. Compare Psalms 51,7 הן בעוון חוללתי ובחטא יחמתני אמי, “Indeed, I was born with iniquity; with sin my mother conceived me.” Seeing that genetically close relatives, usually living under the same roof, provide ample opportunity for the males and females of that family to engage in illegitimate sexual relations, and not only do they find it enjoyable but they do not consider it at all sinful, such pairings will hardly ever be for the purpose of marriage, but merely for the purpose of mutual physical indulgence. As a result, allowing marital relations of an incestuous nature would result in sexual promiscuity of major dimensions. This is why the Torah wrote לגלות ערוה, in most instances the very baring of flesh, and especially private parts, is the physical gratification desired in the first instance. This is why the Torah, in order to nip incest in the bud, addresses itself again and again to this phenomenon by using the expression לגלות ערוה, the titillation provided by feasting one’s eyes on the flesh of the opposite sex. When listing degrees of blood relationship, the Torah proceeds from the man’s vantage point, and in the case of the woman from the perspective of her husband. This is why in order of sequence the Torah first forbids the sister of one’s father who is a first degree blood relation to one’s father. On the other hand, the Torah permits the daughter of such father who is a relative of the second degree to the party. The Torah then prohibits the wife of one’s father and the wife of one’s brother and the wife of one’s uncle, even after their respective husbands have already died. This is in spite of the fact that no genetic connection exists between the people forbidden to one another as man and wife. The reason is simply that they Torah views them all from the perspective of how they are related to their husbands. This appears to be the guideline for all incest-related legislation.

לא תקרבו, “do not approach;” this expression is a simile for describing carnal relations. An example of the use of this expression elsewhere is in Genesis 20,4: ואבימלך לא קרב אליה, “Avimelech did not approach her,” or Isaiah 8,3: ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess;” לא תקרבו, the reason this line is used in the plural mode is to warn both parties not to indulge in such carnal relations. The normally more passive partner is considered equally guilty.

איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו, “any man shall not approach his close relative (with a view to sexual relations).” This verse expresses the Torah’s prohibition of incest. According to Nachmanides the following verses describe the type of relations-through blood or through marriage- which are included in this prohibition. The biological reason for this prohibition is presumed to be that children born from such incestuous unions have a limited life expectancy and are generally genetically deficient in some way. Seeing that the whole purpose of sexual relations is the creation of healthy children, cohabitation with the various categories of family members mentioned in this chapter is forbidden. This is the meaning of the words (chapter 20,19) כי את שארו הערה, “for he has revealed his blood-relationship,” i.e. the prohibition is due to the deficiencies in such blood-relationship. Concerning the prohibition to have sexual intercourse with a woman while she is experiencing her monthly cycle, this proves further that prohibitions of marital relations are rooted in considerations of health, the chance of a viable fetus being produced from such sexual unions. Seeing that the fetus is formed out of the blood of the woman either in the main or completely, reproduction of the human species from menstrual blood is scientifically not possible; the fetus would not even be started if cohabitation occurred during that period. What would Nachmanides have to say in respect of Deut. 23,2 where the Torah permits [by implication, Ed.] the person who suffers from crushed testicles, i.e. is unable to sire children, to marry a female convert or a female Gentile slave who has been freed by her master (and has converted)? Surely if the dominating reason of the עריות legislation were rooted in biological considerations these people should not be permitted to cohabit with a Jewess, even one who was not a natural born Jewess! This proves that sexual intercourse not designed to produce Jewish offspring is not necessarily forbidden. I will explain this in context when we come to the relevant verses (Deut. 23,2). The ראב"ד in his book בעלי הנפש chapter שער הקדושה, writes that sexual intercourse may be divided into five categories. Category one is a duty designed to ensure the survival of the human species. Category two is obligatory on the husband in order for him to fulfill his duty vis-a-vis his wife; this duty is called עונה in Exodus 21,10. Category three is when it serves therapeutic functions, is recommended for one’s health. Category four is when it serves to release carnal urges which preoccupy one’s thinking and may lead to sex with forbidden partners unless given an outlet. Category five, a forbidden category, is to indulge one’s lust as do the animals. Maimonides in the third part of his Moreh Nevuchim, chapter 49 writes that the reason for the עריות legislation is to reduce the frequency men indulge in cohabitation, to train people to accept that the sex act per se is considered revolting and that when it comes to the Torah’s prohibiting man’s pairing with the females of the species mentioned in our chapter, the common denominator found here is that the women in question are constantly part of his immediate environment and therefore represent a temptation due to their easy availability. Seeing that man is surrounded by such temptation, the Torah decreed harsh penalties against the violation of this legislation. Ibn Ezra in verse 6 cites similar reasons as governing this legislation. Nachmanides considers that this is a very inadequate reason for such legislation, and that to impose the karet penalty on a transgression merely because these women are close at hand is neither logical nor psychologically sound. Why should the Torah prohibit these relatives because they are close at hand, while permitting one to marry multiple women who are not his relatives? Why should one not be allowed to marry his daughter alone (as is permitted for a gentile), or marry two sisters as Yaakov did? One could not find a more suitable marriage partner for his older son than one of his own daughters, the sister of his son, and bequeath them his inheritance and have them populate in his own home, being that G’d did not create the earth for it to remain a wasteland (Isaiah 45,18). The fact remains that we have no valid tradition concerning the true reasons for this legislation and the choice of which relationships are objectionable. [For instance — why an uncle may marry a niece whereas an aunt may not marry a nephew (even if the nephew happens to be older than the aunt). Ed.] I will explain the reason for the legislation on my own account. (Rabbi Chavell traces this explanation to a well known Kabbalist, Rabbi Ezriel, quoted in the Sefer Hamitzvot of Rabbi Recanati). Relationships, i.e. kinship, are divided into three categories: The first category comprises kinship between people who had never been separated. The second category comprises new kinship between people between whom there never had been any genetic relationship before. The third category of kinship is that between people who are related by blood but have been separated at one stage or other in life. An example of the first category is Adam and his family; all of his descendants were allowed to intermarry freely, their union being considered like branches which unite with their common root. This is how we must understand the saying of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,3) that when Adam and Chavah had their first marital union they joined on a bed and when they got off the bed there were seven human beings; Kayin and his female twin, Hevel and two female twins. The number seven symbolises the ”union” just as the Menorah (candlestick in the Tabernacle) had seven arms, all of them being part of the central shaft. Our sages say further that from a legal point of view Adam could have married his own daughter, however he performed an act of kindness toward his son Kayin giving him his daughter as a wife. This is the meaning of Psalms 89,3: “the world is built on loving kindness” (compare Sanhedrin 55). This kind of kinship where all the parties concerned had never been separated was not subject to the present legislation. Just as Adam and his wife were made of the same flesh, so their children were the product of genetically the very same material as their parents. No other genetic material was part of any of these children. The second category of human relationships is the exact opposite of the first. Two people who are of genetically totally different background are permitted to join together in marriage precisely because they are not related to one another. Such a union is comparable to the branch of a tree which had been totally cut off and is being planted in the earth again to produce a new root. Thirdly, the kinspeople who are too closely related to one another have been forbidden as potential marriage partners because they had at one time become separated. This is the group of people for whom this legislation has been written. Seeing these people were united generations back but had grown apart in the interval they cannot serve as a symbol of unity, something that marriage, building a family is all about. To sum up: the rule is that people who are genetically distant from one another may unite in marriage in order to demonstrate that genetic distance from one another is no barrier to union, on the contrary the concept of unifying, creating a bond resulting in a union is best demonstrated by such people. People who are genetically very close must not enter marital unions (or sexual unions) because up until then they were symbols of the reverse of union, of separation. Seeing that the kinsmen and kinswomen were not the product of the kind of genetically unified unions such as Adam and Chavah, they do not display signs of such genetic uniformity. Seeing that branches should unite with their roots (if they did not remain united by not being lopped off), the Torah encourages marriage between such “stray, isolated” branches. The same is true of a solitary trunk. A trunk’s genetic excellence can be demonstrated only by means of its branches. If these branches had been cut off and scattered this is equivalent to the trunk (root) having lost its yichus, genealogical excellence. We may view people who violate the laws pertaining to עריות, forbidden sexual unions, as destroying the concept of creating unity. This is also the reason why the tetragrammaton, the name of G’d emphasizing His Unity, prefaced this legislation. This is why the words אני י-ה-ו-ה are appended at the end of verse two in our chapter. Our sages in Sanhedrin 57 interpreted the words איש איש in our verse as including members of the Gentile nations to whom such legislation (in part) also applies. We find other instances where the expression איש איש is also used to alert us to the fact that the law in question applies also to the Gentiles. A prominent example is Leviticus 24,15 where the prohibition of cursing the name of G’d is legislated. This is also one of the seven Noachide laws. Similarly, worshipping the Moloch and sacrificing one’s children to that deity is forbidden to the Gentiles. This prohibition is also introduced with he words איש איש, (compare Leviticus 20,2).

A man, any man, shall not approach any kin of his flesh, etc. This refers to proximity that leads to sexual immorality, namely seclusion, as it leads to sexual misconduct. Therefore, it says a man, any man specifically when each individual man is alone with the woman, since two men are permitted to be secluded with one woman. A man, any man means each man by himself. Yet it says do not approach in the plural form to warn the woman as well, as Rashi explains. Regarding the reason for the prohibition of forbidden sexual relationships, Maimonides explained that it is to reduce sexual relations, because these women are near to him and constantly available to him. Nachmanides refuted this view because we see that Scripture permitted thousands of wives to him. Therefore, he explained that this commandment is a secret. And it seems that this is why it states I am the Lord in this context, meaning: I am the One who knows the reason for this matter, and for you it is an ordinance [without explanation].

איש איש אל כל-שאר בשרו, ”any man shall not approach his close relative, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the underlying reason for the legislation not to indulge in incestuous relationships has not been spelled out in the Torah. Maimonides claims in his Guide for the Perplexed (3,49) that the underlying reason is to minimize the frequency of indulging one’s libido, and with close relatives who may live in the same house such opportunities exist more than with potential sexual partners who live elsewhere. The subject is closely related to matters discussed in the Sefer Yetzirah, that the author claims not to have understood. Moreover the subject of sexual gratification contains animalistic elements at the same time as the fulfillment of the first commandment G’d gave man. Anyone who knows that in indulging his libido he will not or cannot fulfill that commandment must not indulge in sexual intercourse. Seeing that in order to fulfill the commandment to multiply, i.e. to have children, our libido has its positive part to play in the way the Creator arranged the human race, it was impossible to outlaw sexual activity altogether. He therefore legislated what from our vantage point may look like a compromise, but what from His vantage point no doubt reflects His superior wisdom. [Some of this wording is my own. Ed.]

The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother — you shall not uncover her nakedness.

אביך ערות THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER, [AND THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER] — This refers to intercourse with thy father's wife (no matter whether she is thy own mother or thy stepmother). Or perhaps this is not so, but ערות אביך has to be taken literally (as sodomy)?! Scripture, however, uses the expression ערות אביך here, and it is said later on (Leviticus 20:11) “And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness (״(ערות אביו גלה. Now what is the meaning of ערות אביו there? It refers to one's fathers wife! so does ערות אביך here also refer to one's father's wife (Sanhedrin 54a). וערות אמך AND THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER [SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER] — This is intended to include in the prohibition the marriage of one's own mother although she be not the wife of one's father (Sanhedrin 54a).

THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER, AND THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER, SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER. Rashi commented: “The nakedness of thy father — this refers to thy father’s wife. And the nakedness of thy mother — this is intended to include one’s own mother, although she be not the wife of one’s father. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover — this is intended to include in this prohibition one’s father’s wife even after [the father’s] death.” Similarly Rashi explained: “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother. And what does this [uncovering of his] nakedness mean? Thou shalt not approach to his wife.” This is indeed true according to the correct sense [of the verses]. But in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin the Rabbis concluded that the verses, the nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy father’s brother, are prohibitions against carnal relationships with these males themselves [and not with their wives], and [are required] to make the offender liable to a double penalty if he committed it in error [lying carnally with his father or uncle]. But I wonder, according to the opinion of the Sages [who explain the verse, the nakedness of thy father as being a prohibition against lying carnally with one’s father], why did He not likewise admonish against lying carnally with a son or brother, in addition to prohibiting [sexual relationships with their] wives? Perhaps the Torah was more particular in guarding the honor of the elders. However, each and every verse in this section [of forbidden relationships] constitutes only one prohibition, there being here no case of two admonitions in one prohibition, for the command concerning sisters [in Verse 9] and also daughters [in Verse 10] each constitute but one prohibition [and not, as Rashi explained there, that each verse contains two prohibitions]. The correct interpretation by way of the simple meaning of Scripture appears to me to be that the nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother [shalt thou not uncover], constitute but one negative commandment and one admonition, which forbids intercourse with one’s own mother, for in having such intercourse he thereby uncovers the nakedness of his father and that of his mother. This is the sense of the [concluding] expression in this verse, she is thy mother, meaning that you have done with her two evils, in that you have uncovered the nakedness of your mother and that of your father. Following the admonition against uncovering the nakedness of one’s father, which refers [as explained] to one’s mother, He went back [in the following Verse 8] and admonished against [uncovering] the nakedness of one’s father’s wife, although she be not one’s mother, saying, The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy father’s nakedness. Similarly, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother means [as the verse itself continues], thou shalt not approach to his wife. This is why it does n...

"The nakedness of your father" — He begins with the father because the father precedes the son. He states that whoever constitutes the nakedness of father and mother is forbidden; the mother heads the list, and after her the nakedness of the stepmother who is not his mother, and after her the sister who is the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.

ערות אביך וערות אמך לא תגלה, “the nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not expose.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the verse speaks of a single negative commandment; the meaning is: “you must not reveal the nakedness of your mother for in so doing you would reveal the nakedness of your father.” Their nakedness is basically one. The same is true of verse 14 where the Torah writes “you must not expose the nakedness of your father’s brother; do not approach his wife she is your aunt.” Here too this is a prohibition aimed solely at the aunt as all the laws in this chapter are aimed at the females. The meaning is that in exposing the nakedness of your aunt you would be exposing your father’s brother’s nakedness. A Midrashic approach based on Sanhedrin 54: we are dealing with two separate laws (negative) in this verse. The expression ערות אביך refers to “your father’s wife” (as opposed to his genitals being exposed). The words ערות אמך refer to “your mother who is not the wife of your father.” As to the word ערות אשת אביך in verse 8, this refers to this prohibition applying even after the death of the father when the woman is no longer your father’s wife. The words ערות אחותך בת אביך in verse 9 refer to a half-sister not born of the same mother or the daughter of your mother who does not share the same father with you. The words מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ in that verse refer to the fact that no distinction is made if she is born out of wedlock or as a child of a legal marriage; in either event she is forbidden to you being considered your sister. You have to respect her kinship to you though it may not be the result of a formalised relationship. As to the Torah repeating in verse 11 ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך, this all belongs together with the line ערות אחותך בת אביך, “your sister who has not been born of the same mother as you.” The repetition simply means that violating this prohibition makes the party doing so guilty of having violated two separate commandments. Someone who has sexual intercourse with a half-sister from another mother becomes guilty of transgressing the injunction against relations with a sister as well as against the injunction not to expose the nakedness of one’s father’s wife’s legal daughter.

ערות אביך, “The nakedness of your father, etc.” Rashi explains that the reference is to the wife of one’s father who is not one’s mother, whereas the words ערות אמך refer to one’s mother who was never married to your father (either because he raped her or they had illegitimate relations seeing that he was legally unable to marry her) Nachmanides adds that the Talmud in Sanhedrin 54 does not explain our verse in the manner Rashi does, but explains the scenario in terms of homosexual relations of son and father. Seeing that in the Talmud there is an opinion (Rabbi Yehudah) that reflects Rashi’s approach, the R’osh, our author’s father, writes that Rabbi Yehudah’s view appears closer to the plain meaning of the text. Nachmanides’ own opinion is that the two statements ערות אביך and ערות אמך do not speak of parallel situations at all. The first warning is the prohibition not to sleep with one’s mother, because by doing so one violates one’s father’s nakedness, whereas the second warning mentioning one’s mother underlines the fact that in violating one’s father’s nakedness one at the same time violates one’s mother’s nakedness. One commits two evil deeds at one and the same time by perpetrating a single incestuous act. After the Torah warns regarding incestuous relations involving one’s father which is at the same time an incestuous relationship with one’s mother, the Torah comes back to forbidding incestuous relationships with the wife of one’s father who is not one’s mother by saying that one must not have such relations with one’s father’s wife because by doing so one would in effect commit incest with one’s father. Similar reasons are given by the Torah for forbidding such relations with the father’s brothers. The meaning of the line ערות אחי אחיך לא תגלה is: “do not have relations with the wife of your father’s brother.” This is why no mention was made specifically of the wife of such brother (uncle).

The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness.

ערות אשת אביך THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER'S WIFE [SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER] — This is intended to include in the prohibition of union with one's father's wife already mentioned v. 7. even the doing of this after his death (Sanhedrin 54a).

The nakedness of your sister — the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother — whether born of your father from another wife or born of your mother to another man, you shall not uncover their nakedness.

בת אביך [THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER] THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER [OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER… THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Also the daughter of a woman raped by one's father is implied by the term מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ. .בת — WHETHER SHE BE BORN IN THE HOUSE OR WHETHER SHE BE BORN OUTSIDE THE HOUSE — This means, thy sister, thy father's daughter, whether according to the law we can say to thy father, "Keep her mother as your wife" or whether we have to say to him, "Divorce her mother", as, for instance, when she is a ממזרת (the issue of a union forbidden in the Torah under the penalty of כרת) or a נתינה (the daughter of a Gibeonite woman, cf. Joshua 9:27, forbidden under the penalty of מלקות) (Yevamot 23a).

THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER, THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER, OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER, WHETHER BORN AT HOME, OR BORN ABROAD, EVEN THEIR NAKEDNESS THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER. “Whether born at home, or born abroad — this means whether [the court] says to your father, ‘Keep her mother as your wife,’ or whether it has to say to him, ‘Divorce her mother,’ as for instance when she [i.e., the mother] is a mamzereth or a nethinah” [a mamzereth is the female product from one of the forbidden sexual relationships in this section, and a nethinah is a female descendant of the Gibeonites — relationships with these women being in both cases punishable by whipping]. Thus the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, since this interpretation leads to the conclusion that a sister that is born from [a woman who is herself one of] the relations forbidden [to his father], is not included in this prohibition [against marrying one’s sister. For since Rashi explained the expressions whether born at home, or born abroad as referring to the mother, whether she is a lawful wife or a mamzereth or nethinah, both of whom are forbidden to the father only by punishment of whipping, and not by excision, unlike all forbidden relations, then the illogical result follows that if the mother were one of those relations forbidden to his father by punishment of excision, then the son’s sister born from that union would not be included in this prohibition]! And yet all [sisters] are forbidden by excision [i.e., regardless of whether the sister was born of a union itself permitted, or forbidden by whipping only, or by excision], unless she be born of a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman [in which case she is not considered his sister at all]!And I wonder at the Rabbi [Rashi]! For in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth in the second chapter it is clearly stated: “Perhaps I can say that this excludes a sister born of a union forbidden by whipping [as in the case where his father married a mamzereth and she gave birth to a daughter, for I might say that the marriage, being forbidden, had no validity, and she is therefore not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rav Papa: In unions punishable by whipping, the marriage, [although forbidden], has legal validity. For it is written, If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated. Now is there before G-d a beloved one and a hated one [i.e., could it be supposed that the law should allow discrimination between the children of a favored wife and those of a hated wife]? Rather, you must say ‘beloved’ denotes ‘beloved for her well-chosen marriage’ [i.e., that it was blameless, since it was within the law], and ‘hated’ means ‘hated for her [illicit] marriage.’ And the Merciful One states, ‘ki thihyena l’ish’ (if a man ‘have’) — two wives. Perhaps I might say that this excludes a sister born of a union punishable by excision [so that she is not his ‘sister’ in the s...

"Born of the house" — one who was born according to the law of the house of Israel, after betrothal and betrothal-consecration. "Born outside" — outside the custom. Some say that the meaning of "born" (moledet) is like "born upon the knees of Joseph" (Gen. 50:23) — meaning she was raised with you in the house; or she is in another place and another country and was raised outside the father's house with you. Afterward the text mentions the daughter of his son.

ערות אחותך, “the nakedness of your sister;” this part of the verse concerns carnal relations without the benefit of marriage. [she is your sister from a an illicit relationship that your father indulged in. Ed.] בת אביך, “the daughter of your father;” the result of your father having raped a woman, or seduced her, as a result of which she bore that daughter. This is why the Torah added the words: מולדת בית “born at home,” to describe this relationship. On the other hand, the expression מולדת חוץ, “born outside,” refers to the result of a stranger having raped or seduced your mother as a result of which she bore an illegitimate daughter.

מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ, “whether born to someone who may remain at home, or born to someone who must remain outside of it.” Rashi comments that the meaning of these words is: “regardless of whether one tells your father that: “you may keep her,” or whether one tells the father: ”you must divorce her.” [Compare Yevamot 23, an example being quoted being the mamzeret, an illegitimate offspring who we might have thought does not qualify as a “relative.“ Ed.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text this is a warning not to have sexual relations with one’s mother’s half sister, from the same mother, regardless if such sister was born to a husband and wife, her sister’s husband having married also his wife’s half sister, or if she is the daughter of a totally illicit relationship. Had we not had this verse, we would have thought that as long as the sister in question had been born in wedlock that she deserves preferred treatment, i.e. that the Torah would not publicly shame her by this legislation. This is also the reason that the Torah additionally writes in the following verse about a half sister when the two only have the same father. The first half of that verse speaks of such a half sister born in wedlock, i.e. מולדת אביך. This was necessary, seeing that in the case of a half sister, the daughter of the same mother, the Torah had not spelled out this distinction. There had been an assumption that possibly sleeping with a daughter of one’s father that resulted from an illicit relationship might not be considered by the Torah as an incestuous relationship; the Torah therefore had to set the record straight telling us that such a relationship is forbidden under the heading of קורבה, incest with a relative. The line בת אביך מולדת אביך was written so that we would know that the first verse mentioning בת אביך does not speak of a father’s daughter sired with his legal wife. Seeing that in the rules of incest for non Jews such relationships apply only when they involve the mother rather than the father, the Torah went on record that amongst Israelites there is no such distinction, and both father and mother are considered on an equal footing when it comes to incest. It is therefore possible to incur the penalties for a single act of incestuous relations both because of violating the law not to sleep with one’s sister and with one’s father’s wife.

מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ; both legitimate or illegitimate, both unmarried. This appears to me to be the plain meaning of the text.

The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter — you shall not uncover their nakedness, for they are your own nakedness.

ערות בת בנך THE NAKEDNESS OF THE DAUGHTER OF THY SON [OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY DAUGHTER THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — When it states "thy daughter״ Scripture is speaking of his daughter born of a woman whom he had outraged (similarly "the daughter of thy son" means, the son born of such a woman). This must be so, for that one is forbidden to marry one's daughter or the daughter of one's daughter who was born of one's wife we may learn from the prohibition (v. 17) in the verse beginning אשה ובתה ערות "the nakedness of a woman and her daughter" of whom it is stated "thou shalt not uncover" and which thus implies the prohibition to marry one's daughter (and forbids one's marriage with one's daughter's daughter; for Scripture continues there: “neither shalt thou take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter) whether she be begotten by him or by another man (cf. Yevamot 22b and Rashi von v. 17). ערות בת בנך THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SON'S DAUGHTER [… THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Since even thy son's daughter (the former being born from an אנוסה) is forbidden, the prohibition concerning thy own daughter born of thy אנוסה could be derived by a conclusion a minori ad majus (ק״ו). But because there is a rule אין מזהירין מן הדין “no prohibition can be derived by a logical conclusion" they (the Rabbis) derived it in Treatise Yevamot 3a by an analogy (גזירה שוה) based on the similar expression הנה — הנה used here and in v. 17.

ערות בת בנך או בת בתך, “the nakedness of your son\s daughter, or your daughter’s daughter, etc.;” how do we know that the “nakedness of your daughter” is also included although the Torah has not spelled this out? We derive this from the expression: הנה, both at the end of this verse as well as in verse 17. The Talmud in Sanhedrin folio 76, elaborates on this. [Actually logic dictates that if it is forbidden to have carnal relations with one’s grandchild, it is certainly forbidden to have such relations with one’s child. However, the sages preferred to find a hint of this in the written text of the Torah, also. Ed.]

ערות בת בנך או בת בתך לא תגלה, “You must not expose the nakedness of your son’s daughter or you daughter’s daughter, etc.” Interestingly, the Torah failed to mention the prohibition of sexual relations with one’s daughter; the reason is that this may be arrived at by simple logic. If the Torah provides a harsh penalty for cohabiting with one’s granddaughter, the same is most certainly appropriate for a father who cohabits with his daughter. The absence of the direct prohibition of sleeping with one’s daughter is comparable to the direct prohibition of eating meat and milk. Seeing that the Torah forbade the boiling of meat in milk, (Exodus 23,19) it is clear that eating such a mixture is most certainly forbidden also. In connection with Exodus 23,19 I explained the reason why the Torah phrased that prohibition as applying to the boiling of the two items of food instead of simply forbidding the consumption of the two at the same time. Seeing that the Torah failed to mention “do not uncover the nakedness of your daughter,” our sages (Yevamot 3) concentrated on a different method of deriving this prohibition by insisting that there is a written link to this legislation in the Torah called גזרה שוה, the use of otherwise redundant words which contribute little to our understanding where they appear. The words in question are זמה,זמה and הנה,הנה respectively (verse 17 and chapter 20,14 ). [The sages were not happy with relying on logic, i.e. a קל וחומר, seeing that such a source for a prohibition, while adequate, cannot be used to determine that the prohibition carries such a harsh penalty as karet. Ed.]

The nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife, who was born of your father — she is your sister; you shall not uncover her nakedness.

ערות בת אשת אביך THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER'S WIFE'S DAUGHTER… [THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — This teaches us that one is not liable to excision for a union with one's sister (on his father’s side) who was born of a maid-servant or a non-Jewess. It is for this reason that Scripture instead of simply saying "thy sister" uses the circumlocution "the daughter of thy father's wife" i. e. a woman who is fitted for Kiddushin (one with whom a marriage may be legitimately entered into, which is not the case with a שפחה ונכרית) (Yevamot 22b).

"The nakedness of your father's daughter" — some say this refers to a sister from both the same father and the same mother, and we know that one who lies with her transgresses two prohibitions. Others say this verse comes to strengthen the prohibition. The Sadducees said she is not a daughter of the same mother, and they interpret "born of your father" as one whom your father raised — meaning that the father took a wife who had a young daughter from before. They similarly interpret the case of Tamar, their proof being: "he will not withhold me from you" (2 Sam. 13:13) — but she was not, in fact, David's own daughter. Since, however, the Masoretic transmitters said that the daughter of one's stepmother is permitted, there is no need to refute those who invent things from their own minds. It is possible that "the daughter of your father's wife" refers to a daughter born of a forced union.

אחותך היא, “she is your sister.” Here the Torah speaks of a “sister” who is the result of an official union, whereas previously, in verse 9 it spoke of the result of a casual relationship. The same is true when the Torah spoke of “the daughter of your mother by marriage, all the more so the daughter, i.e. a sister who is the result of your father or your mother.

The nakedness of your father's sister you shall not uncover; she is your father's close kin.

The words she'er and basar are close in meaning.

The nakedness of your mother's sister you shall not uncover, for she is your mother's close kin.

The nakedness of your father's brother you shall not uncover; to his wife you shall not draw near — she is your father's brother's wife.

ערות אחי אביך לא תגלה THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER'S BROTHER THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER — and what does this "uncovering of his nakedness" mean אל אשתו לא תקרב? THOU SHALT NOT APPROACH TO HIS WIFE.

"She is your aunt" — she is regarded as your aunt. Similarly, "Behold, Hanameel my uncle" (Jer. 32:7). Now what shall those do who base the commandments on Scripture alone? For the text does not explicitly forbid the wife of one's maternal uncle, nor one's paternal grandmother, nor one's maternal grandmother. We therefore need tradition. It is possible that the wife of the maternal uncle is not mentioned because we derive it by analogy from the wife of the paternal uncle, and it is mentioned in the parashah of Kedoshim (Lev. 20). Similarly, those cases not explicitly mentioned — Scripture speaks of what is common.

The nakedness of thy father's brother thou shalt not dishonour, nor come nigh to his wife carnally; she is the wife of thy father's brother.

The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not uncover; she is your son's wife — you shall not uncover her nakedness.

אשת בנך [THE NAKEDNESS OF THY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER; SHE IS] THY SON'S WIFE — By using the apparently redundant words: “she is thy son's wife" Scripture says, as it were: I command this about such a woman only when thy son has a legal matrimonial relation (אישות) to her, thus excluding a woman who has been raped by him (אנוסה) or a Canaanitish maid-servant, or a non-Jewess (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 10)).

The nakedness of your brother's wife you shall not uncover; it is your brother's nakedness.

"The nakedness of your brother's wife" — this is addressed in the parashah of Ki Yeshvu Achim (Deut. 25:5). As for one who asks why Scripture did not mention the daughter — she is in fact specified: "the nakedness of a woman and her daughter," whether she is his own daughter or not his daughter, for once he has lain with the mother, the daughter becomes forbidden.

The nakedness of thy brother's wife thou shalt not dishonour in the life-time of thy brother, or after his death, if he have children; for it is the nakedness of thy brother.

The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter you shall not take, to uncover her nakedness — they are near kin; it is a counsel of sins.

ערות אשה ובתה THE NAKEDNESS OF A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER [THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Scripture forbids this only if the union with the first of these (whether it be the woman or her daughter) came about through a legal marriage. That is why Scripture uses the term לא תקח, the expression employed for "taking to wife in a legal way". Similarly with reference to the punishment for such a union it states, (Leviticus 20:14) "And if a man take (יקח) a wife and her mother, [it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire]" — an expression for "taking" to wife in a legal way. But if one has raped a woman he is permitted to marry her daughter (Yevamot 97a). שארה הנה means, they are closely related to one another. זמה means, an evil plan, as the Targum renders it עצת חטאין , "a sinful plan"; the term is used because it is your evil inclination which counsels you to sin.

IT IS ‘ZIMAH’ (LEWDNESS). Onkelos translated: “it is a sinful plan,” and Rashi commented thereon, “because your evil inclination counsels you to sin.” But I know of no sense to this, for with regard to all forbidden relations and all other transgressions, it is the evil inclination that counsels one to sin! [Why then is this verse prohibiting intercourse with a woman and her daughter, singled out by the use of this expression?] But the meaning of the matter is that the term zimah is derived from the expression, as ‘zamam’ (he had purposed) to do unto his brother. A proper thought is called m’zimah, as it said, And no ‘m’zimah’ (purpose) can be withholden from Thee, and lewdness that is thought of in secret is called zimah, similar to that which it is said, If my heart have been enticed unto a woman, and Scripture concludes, For that were ‘zimah’ (a heinous crime); yea, it were an iniquity to be punished by the judges. Similarly, ‘v’zimatheich’ (thy lewdness) and thy harlotries; ‘v’zimath’ (the lewdness of) thy harlotry, denoting these illicit acts committed in private and in public. In my opinion Scripture states it is ‘zimah’, in the case of [sexual relationships with] a woman and her daughter, and also a woman and her mother, in order to condemn the matter, saying that when one lies with the one, who is his wife, he thinks of the other one on account of their relationship and likeness, and thus lying with both of them is a cause of lewdness to him. This matter is similar to that which the Rabbis have mentioned: “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against Me. These are the children [who are the offspring] of nine different dispositions [in their parents] etc.” It is for this reason that Scripture states here, the nakedness of a woman and her daughter etc., and similarly it says, And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness, and does not say “the nakedness of your wife’s daughter, or your wife’s mother, you shalt not uncover” [but rather mentions them in each case together, by saying: the nakedness of a woman and her mother, or the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, in order to indicate that the prohibition is on account of thinking of the two together]. And the explanation of the verses here is as follows: At the beginning of the section He said, None of you shall approach to any that is ‘sh’eir’ (near of) flesh to him, to uncover their nakedness, thus prohibiting [sexual intercourse with] those who are near of flesh to him, and He stated the reason for this to be, for theirs is thine own nakedness, and so now [in Verse 17 before us] where He prohibits the wife’s relations, He states ‘sha’arah heinah’ (they are near kinswomen), meaning to say that they are also forbidden because they [the women] are near of flesh to each other, and lying with both of them would be lewdness, as I have explained. Similarly Scripture states, and each hath lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law, meaning tha...

"She'arah hennah" — these are two nouns: she'er together with she'arah. The alef should properly be quiescent like the lamed of salmah (garment), were it not that it is a guttural letter.

זימה היא, it is sexual union based only on lust and sinful intent.

שארה הנה זמה היא, “they are close relatives, it is an act of depravity.” Onkelos translates the word זמה as עצת חטאין, “a frivolous sinful plot.” The originator of this plot is the evil urge. Nachmanides writes that basically all acts of incest are the product of temptation by one’s evil urge, and the reason why in this particular instance the Torah mentions זמה, “an evil plot,” is that the word זמה is derived from זמם, an expression the Torah uses for witnesses who plot together to accuse an innocent party of having committed a major crime. (Deut.) A devious, illicit plot is called זמה, or מזמה as we know from Job 42,2 and Both those instances describe the planning stage of an activity. I believe that the reason why the Torah chose the verse dealing with a man engaging in sexual relations with a mother and her daughter or her granddaughter to describe such as an evil plot, is because in both instances it is likely that when the man engaged in sexual relations with one of the parties he fantasized about having such relations with the mother or the daughter, as the case may be. In other words, while committing the one sin he was already planning the next sin. In other words, by doing so, both indulgences of that man had been turned into sinful planning by him. The words: כי שארה הנה “for they are ‘family,’” make it plain that the Torah considers the parties mentioned as ‘family”’ in the same sense as a wife is “שאר” of her husband [although not so by DNA standards. Ed.]

And a woman together with her sister you shall not take, to be a rival, to uncover her nakedness upon her in her lifetime.

אל אחתה [NEITHER SHALT THOU TAKE A WIFE] TO HER SISTER — both at the same time. לצרר is connected with the word ,צרה — a rival (cf. I Samuel 1:6). Thus the verse signifies “thou shalt not take a wife to her sister", to make (i. e. making) the one the rival of the other. בחייה DURING HER LIFE-TIME — This teaches you that if he divorced her (his wife) he is not allowed to marry her sister so long as she (the former) is still living (Yevamot 8b).

AND THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WOMAN TO HER SISTER, TO BE A RIVAL TO HER, TO UNCOVER HER NAKEDNESS, BESIDE THE OTHER IN HER LIFETIME. Here Scripture explains the reason for the prohibition, stating that it is not proper for you to take a woman in addition to her sister, to be a rival one to another, for it is fitting that they love one another and not be rivals. He did not say so with respect to a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her mother, because they are “near of flesh” and therefore forbidden even after the death of the other [while in the case of two sisters, it is only during the lifetime of his wife, even if she is already divorced from him, that he may not marry her sister].

"To be a rival" — from the root of "and her rival would vex her" (tzarah, 1 Sam. 1:6). Now in the parashah of Kedoshim Scripture does not mention the punishment of one who lies with two sisters, just as it does not mention the punishment of one who lies with his son's daughter or his daughter's daughter. The interpretation of one who explains that Rachel and Leah were not sisters is supported by: "all these abominations" (v. 29) — but this is not conclusive proof. One who asks how Hashem can punish for something He has not explicitly warned against receives various answers: some say that the sons of Noah were commanded concerning these forbidden relations; others say that although Scripture said "all these abominations" using a comprehensive term, the meaning is not every last one of them but rather most of them. My own view you will come to know in the parashah of Vayelech Moshe (Deut. 31).

לא תקח לצרור, the Torah means that were it not for the competitive hostility which would result by the two sisters competing for the love of the same man, there would not have been a biological, genetic reason for forbidding such a union. Proof that this is the guiding motivation of the Torah is the fact that after the death of one sister, the surviving husband may marry the surviving sister.

ואשה אל אחותה, “and a woman (as a wife) in addition to her sister;” this construction is also found in “ אל חלליהם, in Joshua 13,22, where it means: “together with the others who had been slain.” לא תקח לצרור, “you must not marry to become a rival;” the result would be that both these women (the sisters) would be widows in the house of their husbands while the husband is alive, as he is forbidden to have marital relations with either one of them. לגלות ערותה, “to reveal her nakedness;” to the second one while both are alive. עליה, “with her;” we find the expression על used in the sense of “with,” also Leviticus 25,31 על שדה הארץ יחשב, “they will be considered as belonging with the fields of the country.

ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח, “you must not marry a woman’s sister in addition to her.” The word לא תקח, normally applied to a legal union, i.e. marriage, in this instance means “do not sleep with her.” There are occasions when sexual union is described as ביאה whereas on other occasions it is described as שכיבה; on still other occasions it is referred to as ידיעה, whereas here it is phrased as קיחה. The reason that the Torah employs words other than קיחה to describe the same act is to ensure that we do not think that only a formal union such as by means of קידושין, a betrothal involving the bride receiving something of value has been forbidden whereas an informal union of two consenting parties is permitted. Seeing that a legal union with one’s wife’s sister while the former is alive is altogether impossible, the word לא תקח clearly does not describe what is impossible but what is possible, i.e. a sexual union without the benefit of marriage. Chapter 20,17 as well as chapter 20,14 where the Torah uses the word קיחה refers to sexual union without the benefit of a legal contract.

ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח לצרור,” and you must not marry your wife’s sister to make them rivals.” Until you married your wife’s sister, these sisters maintained a very warm relationship with one another. As soon as you provided the basis for jealousy among them by marrying both, you broke up this relationship and turned them into enemies, each vying for your favour. [We only need to think of Rachel and Leah to know the truth of that piece of psychology. Ed.] This same consideration does not apply when a man treats both a mother and her daughter as his wife, even though in terms of DNA the relationship between mother and daughter is closer than that between two sisters. This is borne out by the fact that one may marry the sister of one’s wife if one’s wife has died, something that is forbidden in the case of a mother who is one’s wife dying and one wants to marry her daughter.

לצרור, similar to Samuel I 1,6 וכעסתה צרתה, “she deliberately angered her competitor Chanah, also wife of Elkanah. When a man has two wives, each is considered as a hostile competitor, צרה to the other.

And to a woman in the separation of her impurity you shall not draw near, to uncover her nakedness.

AND UNTO A WOMAN DURING HER SEPARATION FOR HER UNCLEANNESS, THOU SHALT NOT APPROACH TO UNCOVER HER NAKEDNESS. Scripture prohibited [having intercourse with] a menstruant woman for the reason I have mentioned, that the Torah permitted sexual intercourse only for the sake of raising children, and since the whole child or the greater part thereof is created out of the woman’s blood, as I have already mentioned, and from the blood of menstruation it is not created at all [therefore the Torah prohibited intercourse with her during the period of her impurity]. Indeed, how could a child be formed out of this blood, since it is deadly poisonous, capable of causing the death of any creature that drinks or eats it! Now when the womb contains a large amount of this blood of menstruation, the woman cannot become pregnant, as this blood is not endowed at all with the capacity for forming [a child]. Even if she were to become pregnant from other blood, and then derive nourishment from this blood, the child would die. Physicians have also mentioned already that if the foetus derives nourishment from the best of blood, and all its nutriment be of the best quality, but some of this blood of menstruation is mixed with it, it will cause it to go bad, and produce in the child inflammatory swellings and sores of all kinds. And in the opinion of our Rabbis, even if a small part of this [blood of menstruation] remains, in the foetus, the child will be a leper. By virtue, then, of all these reasons it was fitting that the Torah prohibit intercourse with a menstruant. The doctors have also told us in connection with it, a true experience, which is one of the wondrous works of Him Who is perfect in knowledge in creation, that if a menstruant woman at the beginning of her issue were to concentrate her gaze for some time upon a polished iron mirror, there would appear in the mirror red spots resembling drops of blood, for the bad part therein [i.e., in the issue] that is by its nature harmful, causes a certain odium, and the unhealthy condition of the air attaches to the mirror, just as a viper kills with its gaze. And surely it is harmful to have intercourse with her then, since physically and mentally she is attached to the man’s body and mind. Therefore Scripture prohibited it by saying, and her impurity will be upon him, meaning that her condition is a contagious one. It is with reference to this that it states, the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity, always mentioning in connection with her the term “impurity,” which is like that used in speaking of a creeping thing and of a leper, in which cases their impurity is within their bodies. It is possible that this is the sense of the expression, he hath bared her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood, for that blemished fountain should be covered, and not bared in order to draw its bad and extremely harmful waters. Thus intercourse has been prohibited to the holy seed all the days of her impurity...

One who lies with a menstruant is counted among the forbidden relations.

לא תקרב לכלות ערותה, “you must not indulge in marital relations with her at the time when she has her menses.” He must refrain until she has become purified.

ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב, “you shall not approach a woman (your own wife) during the time she is unclean through menstruation.” The Torah varied the term used for having sexual relations with one’s own wife during certain periods from לא תגלה ערותה to לא תקרב, seeing that one is constantly in the proximity of one’s own wife, and therefore a special effort is required not to run afoul of the prohibition to have relations with her. Therefore the Torah not only forbade intercourse but even touching one’s wife during those days, and that is why the Torah used the term לא תקרב “do not even come close!” Nachmanides writes that the reason for this prohibition is that basically, sexual intercourse is for the purpose of reproducing, for having children. Seeing that the embryo is fertilised by the mother’s blood, and it is a well known fact that during menstruation a woman’s body is unable to perform this function there is no point in her husband having relations with her during that period. Nachmanides adds that not only can a menstruating woman not produce or initiate life, but the blood oozing from her during that period is liable to kill any nascent life or afflict it with incurable disease. Furthemore, the scientists have told us of a true experiment, according to which a woman who is in an early state of menstruation who looks at a shiny mirror made of polished iron, that this mirror will reflect drops of blood, proving that the natural effect of her state is to create harmful substances which adhere to the surface of the mirror from the air she exhaled, making her similar to a lethal viper that can kill merely by looking at you. How much more so would she exhale harmful substances if one were to lie with her and be intimate with her. Because of all these reasons the Torah decreed a kind of isolation on such a woman, describing her state of impurity as a special impurity known as טומאת הנדה, and her state of contamination is compared to that conferred by contact with certain שרצים, four-legged vermin, and to the contamination conferred by someone afflicted with tzoraat whose ritual impurity is anchored in his body. [Our sages, as was their custom, accepted the results of the most recent findings of science in their time, especially in view of the fact that Jews in their time did not possess scientists of their own. This Editor has published an article exposing that halachah was erroneously based on such mistaken scientific findings in connection with the need to allow river water to cool off for 12 hours before using it to make the dough for matzot for Passover. Compare my book “the Just lived by his faith,” as well as the translation in Hebrew published by Heychal Shlomoh in שנה בשנה in תשנ'ד. Such a woman remains forbidden to her husband, and is generally in a state of ritual impurity until she has immersed herself in a ritual bath.

ואל אשה בנדת טמאתה לא תקרב, “and you shall not approach a woman when she is having her period, etc.” seeing that her husband is normally physically close to her, the Torah has to issue this additional warning. He must keep his distance from her until she has regained her ritual purity.

And with your neighbor's wife you shall not give your lying for seed, to be defiled by her.

AND THOU SHALT NOT LIE CARNALLY WITH THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “For there is a threefold purpose to sexual intercourse: one is to beget children, a second is to relieve the body of its fluids, and the third is for passion, which is likened to that of the animals. Now when Scripture said l’zara, it means ‘even l’zara’ [i.e., even for the purpose of begetting children], and thus it prohibited [having intercourse with another man’s wife] altogether.” It is possible that He said l’zara in order to mention the reason for the prohibition, since it will not be known to whom “the child” belongs, and as a result, great and wicked abominations might be done by both. Now Scripture did not mention [this expression l’zara further on when it speaks] of the punishment [for this sin], because even for intimacy of the first stage without emitting seed, he is already liable to punishment. It is for this reason that [in the case of a suspected adulteress] Scripture states, and a man lie with her carnally, for it is on account of the zera that he suspects her. Similarly in the case of a betrothed bondswoman it also says, lieth carnally with her, because the prohibition is on account of the child that he will beget from a bondwoman [who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant].The correct interpretation appears to me to be that since another man’s wife is completely forbidden to one, whosoever toucheth her shall not go unpunished, therefore Scripture had to say here l’zara. For had it said only: “and thou shalt not lie with thy neighbor’s wife,” it would have appeared that it forbids [by punishment of excision] even lying with her just for embracing and kissing, since here [in this section] it speaks only of those forbidden relations that are punishable with excision. Therefore it was necessary to mention that the intimacy was l’zara, in order to explain that He is prohibiting here sexual intercourse. This is also the reason for the expression in the case of the betrothed bondswoman, because she is like another man’s wife. Similarly it states in the case of another man’s wife, And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, and it does not state “lieth,” for it is not mere lying with her that He prohibits [under punishment of death]. He does not state here [in the verse before us forbidding intercourse with another man’s wife], “to uncover her nakedness,” for He only mentions this expression with reference to the next of kin and a menstruant, since the prohibition there is because of the uncovering, just as He said, for he hath made naked his near kin.

"And with the wife of your fellow" — to exclude a captive woman. Some say she was already forbidden. As for those whose lustful inclination overcame their judgment, they went astray in their interpretation of "for seed." We know that sexual union divides into three categories: the first is for procreation, without desire; the second is to relieve the body's fullness; the third is for desire alone, analogous to animal lust. Now since Scripture said "for seed" — meaning even for seed — she is surely forbidden with a severe prohibition. And "from your seed you shall not give" (v. 21), which follows it, serves as a further proof. Scripture adds "to defile yourself by her," for all who touch her are never cleansed and remain impure forever. In this parashah Scripture does not forbid a gentile woman at all — nor is there an objection from the captive woman, since she converts and becomes Jewish.

ואל אשת עמיתך לא תתן שכבתך לזרע, “You shall not lie carnally with your neighbour’s wife in a manner which will impregnate her.” According to Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra sexual union can have either one of three objectives. One objective is to produce offspring; the second reason is to use it therapeutically; to lower the body’s acidity, etc.; the third objective is to indulge one’s libido, i.e. to act like an animal. When the Torah here added the words: “in order to fertilize,” i.e. the most noble of the three objectives we have listed, it is to tell us that even when this is the objective the Torah absolutely forbids such an act. Nachmanides writes that the reason that the Torah saw fit to add the words לזרע is that without this word we might have thought that even embracing and hugging someone’s wife results in the karet penalty. This conclusion would have been reasonable seeing that the whole chapter speaks of violations involving that penalty. Thus far Nachmanides. In other words, the verse tells us that sleeping with someone else’s wife results in the karet penalty. Naturally, when there are witnesses to the act and the party or parties have been warned they are liable to execution as we know from Leviticus 20,10 where the Torah decrees death by execution for both the male and the female partner in such an act of adultery. Solomon already castigated participants in adultery when he wrote, inspired by Holy Spirit, in Proverbs 6,27-29: “Can a man take fire to his bosom without burning his clothes? Can one walk on hot coals and not sear one’s feet? So is he who sleeps with his neighbour’s wife; whoever touches her will not go unpunished.” The reason that Solomon used two parables to make the same point is to tell us that the guilty party will experience punishment after death by being consigned to purgatory whereas here on earth he will be executed for his sin. Furthermore, he may refer to a physical penalty for the man who touches his neighbour, i.e. a physical penalty, whereas he faces a penalty for his soul, i.e. being burned in purgatory. The body is compared to clothing, whereas the soul is compared to hot coals. Only the body is punished by being touched, the soul being “untouchable” in the physical sense. Solomon adds in verse 29 that such an adulterer will not go unpunished; he means that if the adultery had been consummated the guilty party will not escape punishment in purgatory. By the same token, his body will not go unpunished if he touched the woman. I have already explained earlier the mystical aspect of the union of wife and husband on Exodus 20,17, and will have further comments on this in connection with Numbers 5,17.

ואל אשת עמיתך לא תתן שכבתך לזרע, “and you must not lie carnally with the wife of your neighbour or colleague to defile yourself with her.” Ibn Ezra writes that cohabitation is an act that can be for one or more of three different purposes. 1) It is intended to impregnate one’s partner with one’s seed so as to produce offspring. 2) It may be designed to relieve oneself of excess pressures (moisture in the parlance of the author) built up in the body. 3) It can be engaged in so as to satisfy one’s lust, an act reducing man to the level of the beasts. The reason that the Torah adds the word לזרע, is to tell us that even when it is engaged in for an otherwise noble purpose, it is totally inadmissible when engaged in with someone else’s wife. Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah added the word לזרע in our verse, is to remind us that if this were permitted, the father (and mother, if she is promiscuous) of any child resulting from such insemination would not know who the true father of such a child is. As a result of such lack of knowledge the earth would become full of abominations resulting from incestuous relationships even by Torah observing people. This is why the Talmud in Sotah 26 in commenting on Numbers 5,13 ושכב איש אותה שכבת זרע, “if some man has cohabited with her and left his sperm in her,” explains that the additional words שכבת זרע mean that if the wife is suspected of perverted sexual relations which could not result in her insemination, that she would not be given the special waters in order to determine if her professions of innocence were true. [it might explain the deceived husband’s rage, suspicion, as he would never know if the child his wife bears is his own. Ed.] This may also be the reason why Torah adds the words:שכבת זרע in Leviticus 19,20 as there too a doubt would surface about the paternity of any child born by that servant woman. In that instance even coitus interruptus is culpable, as the chance of a drop of semen having entered the vagina cannot be discounted. Personally, I feel (Nachmanides writing) that seeing that a married woman is totally out of bounds to any other man for any kind of intimacy, the words שכבת זרע or לזרע are perfectly justified, seeing that if the Torah had only written לא תתן שכבתך, I might have deduced that even if these two people had only kissed or embraced each other they would already have committed a capital offence. Therefore, the Torah added a word that clearly defines the offence as lying carnally with one another. The reason that in our verse the Torah omitted the customary words לגלות ערותה, “to reveal her nakedness”, is that this is a term fit to be used only in connection with people who are genetically related to one another.

And of your children you shall not give any to pass through for Molech; and you shall not profane the name of your God; I am Hashem.

למלך [AND THOU SHALT NOT LET ANY OF THY SEED PASS THROUGH THE FIRE] TO MOLECH — This was an idol the name of which was "Molech", and this was the manner in which it was worshipped: that he (the father) handed his child (lit., his son, but it applies to his daughter also; cf. Deuteronomy 18:10) over to the priests of the idol. These lit two large pyres one opposite the other and made the child to pass on foot between the two pyres (Sanhedrin 64b). לא תתן refers to “the handing over of the child” to the priests. להעביר למלך — this refers to the “passing through the fire".

AND THOU SHALT NOT GIVE ANY OF THY SEED ‘L’HA’AVIR’ (TO PASS THROUGH) ‘LAMOLECH’ (TO MOLECH). This was an idol the name of which was “Molech.” Scripture mentions it with the definite article, since it was well-known to them from Egypt. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that it is possible that Molech is identical with Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites. And so indeed it would appear, for it is written, Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the detestation of Moab … and for Molech the detestation of the children of Ammon. And this [name Milcom] was also well-known to them. Now Rashi commented: “And this was the manner in which the Molech was worshipped: he [the father] would hand over his son to the priests, and the priests lit two large pyres [one opposite the other], and they made the child pass on foot between the two fires. Thou shalt not give, this refers to [the father] handing over [the child] to the priests. ‘L’ha’avir lamolech’ is the passing through the open fire.” But this is not correct. For the Rabbis have already said in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin: “If he made him pass on foot [between the fires] the father is free from punishment [because that was not the customary way of worshipping the idol]; rather, [he is liable only if it was] ‘like a leaping place of Purim,’” meaning that he made him pass through the actual fire [by leaping through it]. Scripture mentions [both conditions to make the father liable to punishment]: a “giving” as it is said, and thou shalt not ‘give’ any of thy seed …], and the act of making him “pass through the fire” [as it is said in Deuteronomy 18:10: There shall not be found among you anyone that ‘maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire’], so that the father does not incur punishment unless he delivers his child to the priests [of Molech] and he [i.e., the father] made him pass through the fire, as is explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. Similarly, that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote that the father hands him over to the priests and they make him pass through the fire — and so he wrote also in his commentaries to Tractate Sanhedrin — that does not appear to be so from the language of the Rabbis here in the Gemara. Moreover, how could the father be liable to death for the worship of Molech done by others [i.e., the priests]? The very language of Scripture, that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire, indicates that it is the father himself who passes him through the fire. Rather, the matter is as follows: the father himself delivers the child to the priests in the name of their detestation. It is with reference to this that it is written, he hath ‘given’ his seed unto Molech, similar to what is done within the Sanctuary precincts, as it is written, and he shall give them unto the priest. Perhaps the priests waved the child before the Molech, or brought it near the idol, and then they returned it to the hands of the father, and he took him and passed him through the...

"To the Molech" — the name of an idol. The Sages interpreted it as a general term for anyone whom one crowns as king over oneself. It is possibly the abomination of the Ammonites. The word "to cause to pass" — it is like burning, for that was its mode of worship. Some say the child was passed through the fire, with some surviving and some dying. Others explained, since the verse makes no mention of fire, that "to cause to pass" means to transfer from the Torah of Hashem to the law of the Molech — "and you will profane the Name" means: He who is called upon you as your God, when you give seed that is holy to the Molech. The Gaon [Saadia] said that illicit intercourse ranks on eight levels of severity, the gravest of all being with an animal since it is of an entirely different species; after that is a male since the entire category is forbidden; after that the nakedness of a stepmother and the like since they are forbidden at all times. I shall not elaborate, for these distinctions are of no practical import, since Scripture declares of all of them: "the souls that do them shall be cut off."

ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך ולא תחלל את שם אלוקיך, the difference between offering sacrifices to the Moloch and to G’d respectively is that to G’d only animals are sacrificed, whereas to the deity known as Moloch, human beings, specifically one’s son, is sacrificed. This would indicate that the worshipper of the Moloch considers him as more powerful than G’d, for why else would he sacrifice his dearest possession, his son, to him and not to G’d? 'אני ה, I have never changed since the time I have sworn to Avraham “to be your G’d and for seed after you.” (Genesis 17,7). Seeing that G’d in this chapter had spoken about incest, matters related to human seed, and His interest in keeping this seed pure so that the holy spirit would be able to descend upon such people, He spoke about the Moloch whose servants had intended to ensure that their other children would be blessed with every kind of success in recognition of their having given the oldest to their G’d. G’d is on record here that doing something like this, far from being a way to sanctifying G’d’s name would be the most potent way to desecrating His name. Such practices, far from attracting the benevolent presence of G’d, the Shechinah, would prevent this presence of G’d from taking up residence among the Jewish people..

ולא תחלל את שם אלוקיך “so that you do not desecrate the name of your G-d.” Who is this G-d of yours? None other than the G-d we revere as the tetragram, the One Who referred to Himself as 'אני ה.

ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך, “You shall not present any of your children to pass through for the Moloch;” There was a pagan cult called Moloch; part of the form of worship required was that the father make his son walk through two piles of wood set afire until he would be burned to death. The assumption underlying this cruel form of worship was that if he fire-god had been given one member of the family as a sacrifice the remaining members of that family would no longer be in any danger from that god. Not only that, but the surviving children would all grow up and be successful, aided by the power of that god. (Compare our comments on Genesis 12,3). The reason the letter ל at the beginning of the word למולך has the patach vowel indicating that this is an already familiar phenomenon (definitive article), is because the Israelites were familiar with that deity from their many years in Egypt. The reason it was known by the name מולך, similar to מלך, “king,” is that it was identical with a deity worshipped by the Ammonites, (compare Kings I 11,17) also known as מלכום. This deity also appears with the name “Adramelech or Anamelech the god of the Sefaryam” (Kings II 17,31). The word “adar” means “honour,” the word “An” means עונה in Hebrew, “affliction, suffering.” Each of these words has the word מלך appended to it. One single cult was known by so many different names. According to Rabbeinu Chananel each of these names represents a different cult as he explains in his commentary on Parshat Ki Tissa. He writes: there are many different forms of idolatrous cults. Some consist of making the idol have the likeness of a human being or at least the face of a human being. Other cults worship a symbol resembling the appearance of a cherub, angel-like figure. Still others worship a force symbolized by the image of certain domestic beasts, free-roaming animals or birds. This is what we read in Kings II 17,30-31: “The Babylonians made Sukoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nirgal, and the men of Chamath made Ashima; and the Avvites made Nivchaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvides burned their children to Adramelech and Anamelech, the gods of the Sepharvaim.” All of these names are different gods. The expression Sukoth-benoth refers to a hen and her chicks; the name Nirgal refers to the male chicken, the rooster. The name Ashima describes a cat, whereas the name Nivchaz describes a dog. The name Tartak describes a donkey, Adramelech an ape, and Anamelech refers to the peacock. I believe that these idols were named after certain stars (patterns resembling such animals). This would correspond to Amos 5,26: “Sikkuth and Kiyyun of your astral deity, the images you have made for yourselves.” The words Sikkuth and Kiyyun are both names of stars and are what Jeremiah 44,19 refers to when he said: “and when we make offerings to the Queen of Heaven and pour libations to her.” The people referred to the stars as “Queen of Heaven.” The expression “kiyyun tzalmeychem” in Amos 5,26 refers to Zachal, otherwise known as Shabbtai (Saturn). The word “kochav eloheychem” in the same verse refers to one of the seven fixed stars (planets) i.e. the sun. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel. The concept underlying these cults was that each of these stars, (planets) has the power to pull down from Heaven certain positive and beneficial outpourings of the Creator’s largess. They called such a deity “kiyyun” on account of the type of food they prepared and served to the image representing the particular deity. [When you consider that the Torah directs that the Altar serves as the gateway to G’d and that the sacrifices presented there are described by G’d as לחם אלוהים “bread (food) for G’d,” the cult does not sound as childish as we are wont to think. The error committed by all the cult-worshippers is that the deities they serve are demonstrably unfree, bound to an orbit we can predict to a fraction of a second, i.e. obviously under a higher authority. Ed.] The word כונים in Jeremiah 44,19 describing the food presented to these deities is an Accadian word describing small cakes. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the word נבחז should be spelled נבחן and is composed of the words נובח, “bellows,” and שן, “showing one’s teeth.” When the Torah in our verse uses the expression להעביר למולך, instead of writing להעביר באש, “to make them pass through fire,” this is due to the fact that everyone at the time knew that the expression להעביר meant to “pass through fire.” There are numerous verses in the Bible confirming this, such as Deut. 18,10, Kings II 16,3; this is why the sages in Sanhedrin 64 had to tell us that the mother of King Chizkiyah had smeared him all over with the blood of a salamander to make him fire-resistant. We also have a verse in Ezekiel 23,37: “and they have even offered to them as food the children they bore to Me.” [Worship of the Lord and simultaneous worship of the Moloch was particularly repugnant to G’d. Ed.] However, the traditional view of our sages of the wording in our verse not mentioning fire specifically is based on their making the father culpable for this transgression already before the child gets to the fire, i.e. at the beginning of the procedure, the one called העברה by the Torah. As soon as even a single one of its limbs is burned the father is guilty of death (Sanhedrin 64). The reason that this verse is appended to one dealing with adultery, something apparently totally unrelated, may be that G’d displays jealousy of the Jewish people serving such cults and thereby being unfaithful to Him, just as a husband is angry when his wife is unfaithful to him. This thought is spelled out in connection with idolatry already in the second of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20,5) “for I the Lord your G’d am a jealous G’d.”

למולך, “to the Moloch.” Nachmanides writes that this word represents a certain type of idolatry, and the reason that the Torah dignifies this type of idolatry by using the prefix ה i.e. the vowel patach at the beginning which substitutes for the definitive article “the,” is due to the fact that this particular idolatry was extremely well known in Egypt, where the Israelites had become familiar with it. Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that it was the chief deity of the people בני עמון, and may have been known to the Israelites as such. לא תתן להעביר למולך, “do not present them to the Moloch. The reason why the Torah employs the expression תתן, “give,” as well as the term העברה, ”transfer,” means that culpability for violating this injunction begins only when both of these acts have been perpetrated. The second stage of that cult involves handing a child over to fire, Moloch being the fire-god. In other words, the father hands over his child to the priests of that cult. Nachmanides adds that the word להעביר is not to be understood as the priests of that cult making the child brave a ring of fire, risking burning his feet, as portrayed by Rashi, for how could the father be guilty of death when a priest of another religion performed this act? Moreover the wording of the verse clearly means that the father of the child himself performed whatever act the Torah describes. Rather, the father may hand over his child to these idolatrous priests, who, in turn perform some sort of ceremony like swinging the child over fire, before restoring it to the father. [There appears a certain amount of confusion as to precisely what these rites were and as a result we do not know for which violation the father would be guilty of death. In light of this I have decided not to elaborate on the subject any further. Ed.] The Torah, by using the word חלול in connection with this barbarous cult makes plain that it is a cult which desecrates the sanctity of all human life, hence the Torah’s extreme opposition to this cult.

And with a male you shall not lie as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

Now the reason for the prohibitions against lying carnally with a male, or an animal, is well-known, as it is an abominable act and is not for the preservation of the human species, because [the copulation] of [male and male or of] man and animal will not beget offspring. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “Since we find [Lot’s daughter using] the expression, Behold, ‘shachavti’ (I lay) yesternight with my father, [and she did not say, nishkavti, in the passive, or “Behold, shachav imi avi, — my father lay with me,” this shows that the term shachav, although in the active form, refers to the person who commits that act as well as the passive partner who permits herself or himself to be thus abused]; thus it follows that the verse, And with a male ‘lo thishkav’ (thou shalt not lie), constitutes a prohibition both against the one who actively commits pederasty, and against the one who permits himself to be thus abused.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra.] But if it be as Ibn Ezra said, why is the woman not included in the verse, And thou shalt not lie with any beast, [and it is clear that she is not so included from the fact that Scripture had to continue, Neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto], for women are included in all admonitions of the Torah? Rather, the use of the expression, Behold, ‘shachavti’ (I lay) yesternight with my father is due to the fact that it was Lot’s daughters who, through lying with him, [were instrumental in that affair] in order to beget seed of him. As is known, the seed comes either from the movement of the whole body, just as foam is formed in the mouths of galloping horses, or it is brought forth in the veins nearby [the sexual organ], where it gathers by the continuing motion thereof until it is emitted. Were they then not to have lain with Lot, his seed would not have come forth, for in his drunkenness he was like a silent stone.

"And with a male" — since we find "I lay last night with my father" (Gen. 19:34), there is a warning for both the one who lies and the one who is lain with. R. Hananel, of blessed memory, said there are those who develop in their body something resembling the shape of a woman's flesh — but this cannot occur by nature. Some say this refers to a hermaphrodite (androginos). All this difficulty arises from the fact that "the lyings of a woman" (mishkevei ishah) is in the plural. A singular word for two lyings — my own view is that the commandment is to be understood in its plain sense. The scholars of wisdom (i.e., the Sages) too have made it a capital offense. Scripture employs dignified language, saying "you shall not draw near," rather than explicit terms. Since the male was created to act and the female to be acted upon, Scripture warns that one should not invert the word of Hashem. There is also a "lying" in which seed is emitted — hence the word mishkevei is in the plural. There is no need to elaborate further. Scripture terms it "an abomination" — for it is a thing abhorrent to a holy soul, even to him by nature.

תועבה היא, “it is an abomination;” the letter ו in the word הוא is vocalised with a chirik״ i.e. it is read as such, it is feminine. [I have not understood the author’s reference to Job 36,33 here. Ed.]

ואת זכר לא תשכב, “and you are not to indulge in homosexual relations with another male.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for the injunctions against sexual relations between males, and between man and beasts, are quite clear, seeing that G’d abhors such mismatching of His creatures. Such relations cannot contribute to the continued existence of the respective species, the only valid reason for indulging in the sexual act. Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that the older daughter of Lot said to her younger sister (Genesis 19,34) “here I have slept with my father last night, etc.,” this is clear proof that the Torah views initiation of the act by the female of the species as on the same level as if the male initiates it, i.e. when a forbidden relationship is entered into both parties are equally culpable. Although the Torah uses the masculine לא תשכב in our verse, the same applies to the female of the spies, i.e. lesbianism is also prohibited. Nachmanides criticizes Ibn Ezra, saying that if he were correct why was the woman not automatically included in the warning of ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה, “you must not inject your seed into any female animal to lie with it carnally,” and mention separately immediately afterwards:ואשה לא תעמוד לפני בהמה לרבעה, “and a woman must not stand in front of an animal for the purpose of mating, etc,?” He therefore concludes that the verse quoted by Ibn Ezra from Genesis 19,34 means that Lot’s daughter drew attention to the fact that seeing that ejaculation of semen by the male normally occurs only as a result of physical activity by the male, something which in the case of the drunken Lot could hardly be expected, she told her sister that in order to secure the semen that both of them wanted, it was not enough to remain passive during the procedure, but they had to be physically active to arouse their father.

And with any beast you shall not give your lying, to be defiled by it; and a woman shall not stand before a beast to mate with it — it is a perversion.

תבל הוא THIS IS CONFUSION — תבל is an expression used for unchastity, incest and adultery. Similar is (Jeremiah 10:25) “Mine anger because of their depravity (תבליתם)". Another explanation of תבל הוא: it is an expression denoting the mingling (root בלל) and fusion of the human seed and the animal seed.

The word "your lying" (shikhavetekha) — I have already explained it; it may be shikhavetekha in the sense of causing to lie down, for at the time of lying an emission (keri) occurs. Just as Scripture says regarding a married woman "to defile yourself by her," so it says regarding an animal. "And with any animal" — female. "And before an animal" — male. "To lie with it" (lerov'ah) — this refers back to the animal, for it is the woman who is mounted; and this word is from the root of arba'ah (four). "It is a perversion" (tevel) — the grammarians say this word is of the doubling pattern, like "it flows along" (yihalokh, Ps. 58:8), with the tav being an additional letter, and they say its meaning is destruction. Some say that mabbul (flood) is from the same root, related to "Hashem confused (balal) the speech of all the earth" (Gen. 11:9). The general rule: Scripture here forbids every category with which a person could pair — a married woman, a foreign woman, and one that cannot produce offspring, for species produces offspring only from its own kind and in its likeness.

לרבעה, “to defile herself;” the letter ה at the end has a dot in it, indicating that it is not the beast that becomes defiled, but the woman who committed this perversion. On the other hand, the same letter in the same word in Leviticus 20,16 is “weak,” תבל הוא, “it is a perversion. The letter ו, here has the vowel shuruk, i.e. the word תבל is a masculine noun. [Our author points this out as in other places the word תבל, meaning “universe,” is feminine, as in Psalms 24,1; 98,7; 50,12; etc., etc. [The author may wish to see in this treatment of the word here as masculine, proof that the Torah always considers the male human being as the initiator of these kinds of perversions. Ed.]

Do not defile yourselves in any of these things, for in all of these the nations were defiled that I am driving out from before you.

"Do not defile yourselves" (al titame'u) — the dageshed tet absorbs the tav of the hitpa'el conjugation, not the nun of the nif'al conjugation. The proof is the dagesh in the mem, as is the grammatical rule. Thus all of them together are mentioned as defiling the soul. "Who is being sent away before you" — the meaning is: driven from the pure land, either dead or expelled.

אל תטמאו בכל אלה, even by merely being physically close to such incestuous members of the opposite sex. כי בכל אלה נטמאו הגוים, for the original depravity of the nations dwelling in Canaan before you involved precisely this ritual contamination. They did not start by actually sleeping with the partners outlawed to them, but by only fondling them.

אל תטמאו בבל אלה, "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things." Torat Kohanim comments that this refers to both some of them and all of them. This seems very strange as the Torah could have simply stated that we must not defile ourselves by sexual intercourse with even a single one of the categories mentioned in this chapter and we could have avoided any chance of misunderstanding. Another difficulty is the ending of the verse "for the nations whom I drive out on your account have become defiled with all these." In view of these words how can we interpret the first half to mean that defilement through involvement in only one of these forbidden unions is meant? The words בכל אלה are not clear; they appear to mean that every one of the Canaanite nations indulged in all of the abominable practices listed in this chapter. We may have to resort to a kabbalistic approach in order to properly understand our verse. This involves knowing the reason why the Torah has not taken us into its confidence concerning the relative importance of one commandment when compared to another; nor has the Torah informed us about specific סגולות treasures or characteristics of individual commandments. On the contrary, when speaking about the Torah, Solomon says in Proverbs 5,6: "She does not chart a path of life, her ways are unstable, you do not know them." Our sages in Avot 2,1 tell us that we should not say that one particular מצוה is important whereas another is not so important. The Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1,1 as well as Devarim Rabbah 6 provide proof for this by saying G'd allocates the same amount of reward for fulfilling a "minor" commandment as He does for someone who fulfils a "major" commandment. We have good reason to believe that G'd considers some commandments as "major" and others as "minor." Why then did the Torah not provide us with a key to help us determine the relative importance of the commandments? Presumably the reason is that the so-called "minor" commandments are as necessary in G'd's plans for our personality development as are the so-called "major" commandments. Each מצוה is a סגולה, a treasure of a unique kind. What does it matter that the reward for one kind of מצוה is greater or smaller than the reward for its counterpart seeing that each reward is something unique, contributes in a unique manner to our personality development to ensure our progress to becoming the most perfect human being? This is why G'd presented the commandments as if they were all of the same level of importance in order that the Israelites should perform all of them. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 9,10: "whatever you are able to do with your might, do it!" Another reason may be this. There are commandments the fulfilment of which may result in material wealth in this world, whereas others may result in longevity in this world. The performance of still other commandments may determine if someone will be blessed with children, etc., etc. G...

Do not defile yourselves with all of these. This implies that they should not reach the extreme end of evil where the land becomes defiled until they defile themselves with all these things. And afterward it says, and do not commit any of the abominations, implying that even with some of them the land becomes defiled. It seems appropriate to explain that this is why He mentioned two types of punishments, namely the land vomiting them out, and the cutting off of the souls that commit these acts. At first, He warned them not to defile themselves with all these things by doing all of them, because with all these things the nations defiled themselves and reached the extreme end where the land became defiled and its iniquity was visited upon it. It became like a sick person who vomits, and it vomited out its inhabitants because its measure was filled, and the way of a full measure is to spill over and vomit because it cannot contain any more. Therefore, be careful that this does not happen to you as well, because then chaos comes and kills both the good and the bad, just as the craftsmen and the gatekeepers were exiled along with Jeremiah and his group. And afterward He warns them, You shall keep… and do not commit any of the abominations, meaning not even some of them should you do. For all the abominations were done by the people of the land, and they received the punishment of the land vomiting them out. But as for you, if you do some of them, the land will not vomit you out — you will not be included in the punishment of vomiting out. Nevertheless, there is another punishment, which is that whoever does any of these abominations, even some of them, although justice does not dictate destroying both good and bad together, nevertheless the souls that do them shall be cut off at the very least. Therefore, you shall keep My charge not to commit any of the abominable customs, not even some of them. And close to this interpretation I have seen in a new book.

And the land was defiled, and I have brought its guilt upon it, and the land has expelled its inhabitants.

AND THE LAND WAS DEFILED, THEREFORE DID I VISIT THE INIQUITY THEREOF UPON IT, AND THE LAND VOMITED OUT HER INHABITANTS. Scripture was very strict in forbidding these sexual relationships on account of the Land which becomes defiled by them, and which in turn will vomit out the people that do [these abominations]. Now forbidden sexual relationships are matters affecting personal conduct, and do not depend on the Land, [so why should the Land be affected by these personal immoral acts]? But the secret of the matter is in the verse which states, When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the people, etc. For the portion of the Eternal is His people etc. The meaning thereof is as follows: The Glorious Name created everything and He placed the power of the lower creatures in the higher beings, giving over each and every nation in their lands, after their nations some known star or constellation, as is known by means of astrological speculation. It is with reference to this that it is said, which the Eternal thy G-d hath allotted unto all the people, for He allotted to all nations constellations in the heavens, and higher above them are the angels of the Supreme One whom He placed as lords over them, as it is written, But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me, and it is written, lo, the prince of Greece shall come. They are called “kings,” as it is written [there], and I was left over there beside the kings of Persia. Now the Glorious Name is G-d of gods, and Lord of lords over the whole world. But the Land of Israel, which is in the middle of the inhabited earth, is the inheritance of the Eternal designated to His Name. He has placed none of the angels as chief, observer, or ruler over it, since He gave it as a heritage to His people who declare the Unity of His Name, the seed of His beloved ones [i.e., the patriarchs]. It is with reference to this that He said, and ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine, and it is further written, so shall ye be My people, and I will be your G-d, and you will not be subject to other powers at all. Now He [also] sanctified the people who dwell in His Land with the sanctity of observing the laws against forbidden sexual relationships, and with the abundant commandments, so that they [His people] would be dedicated to His Name. It is for this reason that He said, And ye shall keep all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them, that the Land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out, and it is further written, But I have said unto you: ‘Ye shall inherit their Land, and I will give it unto you to possess it’ … I am the Eternal your G-d, Who have set you apart from the peoples, meaning to say, that He has set us apart from all the nations over whom He appointed princes and other celestial powers, by giving us the Land [of Israel] so that He, blessed be He, will be our G-d...

"And the land vomited" — for whatever a person vomits is abhorrent in his eyes and he does not return to it.

ותטמא הארץ, the next step was that the earth became contaminated by actual incestuous sexual relations between such partners.

ותטמא הארץ, and the land became defiled, etc. The Torah here intends to tell us something similar to what we have read in the Zohar volume 3 page 53 that the actions of Israel determine the amount of spirituality in our world both positively and negatively. Our sages in Avot 4,11 say that a spiritually positive force is created with the performance of every commandment, whereas a spiritually negative force is created due to a sin being committed. The Torah alludes to this concept when it wrote ואפקוד עונה עליה, "I punished it for its iniquity, etc." This is in line with Jeremiah 2,19 that "your wickedness caused you to be disciplined." Performance of sinful deeds keeps strengthening the accuser against us at the celestial court. Man will be paid in accordance with his deeds. Tomer Devorah chapter 1 describes this payment as the creation of a destructive "angel" who will in due course repay the sinner who had created him. This "angel" loses potency in direct proportion to the afflictions experienced by its victim, so that once the victim has experienced sufficient pain the "angel" expires by itself. G'd deals with everyone absolutely fairly, treating each person individually. The meaning of ואפקד עונה is that the sin itself and its effect is visited upon the sinner. I have already explained why the Torah uses the singular. According to our approach it is possible that the various destructive "angels" man creates due to his sins are activated one at a time and not simultaneously and that this is why the Torah describes the sin in the singular.

ותקיא הארץ “The land spewed out;” anything a person vomits becomes repugnant to him, and he does not want to have a second look at it. [In other words, he does not even long to return to his former homeland. Ed.]

The land became unclean, and I visited its iniquity upon it, etc. If its inhabitants sinned, why was the land punished that it says I visited its iniquity upon it? It appears that all this stems from the primordial sin. For God said, Let the earth bring forth fruit trees, meaning the taste of the tree should be like the taste of the fruit, but the earth did not do so. Therefore, when Adam sinned, the earth was also punished for its iniquity and was cursed. One might ask why it wasn’t cursed immediately. This is because the main deviation was that God wanted the earth to provide pure and refined matter for all creatures, which affects all beings whose origin is from the earth. But the earth did not do so; rather, it provided coarse and thick matter for all of them. This caused the tree not to taste like its fruit because the matter was coarse and turbid, which in turn caused man to have a stronger desire for physical pleasures. If man’s material composition had been pure and clean, he would not have come to sin. Therefore, the earth was not cursed until man sinned, for then the damage became more evident, whereas with the fruit-bearing tree, the damage was not so great. And the Ramban wrote in Parashat Genesis (2:9) that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge would generate sexual desire, and therefore they covered their nakedness after eating from it. Therefore, we find that in every place where the sin of sexual immorality is prevalent, the Holy One, blessed be He, visits the iniquity upon the land, because it caused Adam to sin with the Tree of Knowledge, and through this he had a great inclination toward forbidden relationships. For in the generation of the Flood, where promiscuity was prevalent, it states, Behold, I will destroy them et the earth (Genesis 6:13). [Et means] like “with the earth,” because even the three handbreadths of plowing depth were ruined, and this was a punishment for the land to purify it with boiling water. For this reason, the Land of Israel is called “a land not cleansed,” because it was not rained upon on the day of wrath, as is found in Ezekiel (22:24). And it is written, And I will make the land desolate (Leviticus 26:32). From here is proof that at the time of anger, sin causes the land to be ruined, as it is written, And they will see the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which the Lord has made it ill: sulfur and salt, a burning throughout its land (Deuteronomy 29:21-22). For with hot waters it was ruined, and with hot waters it was judged, with burning throughout its land. And similarly, regarding the generation of the Flood, it is written, And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth (Genesis 6:5), for the earth was affected by the wickedness of its inhabitants. And regarding what it says, “and its diseases which the Lord made it sick with.” This can be explained by way of a metaphor: Every sick person naturally vomits what is inside him. Similarly, it is stated here in the section on forbidden sexual relations, and the land will vomit out its inhabitants — for it will be like a sick person who vomits the food within him. And regarding this it says, And the land became defiled, and I visited its iniquity upon it. This is a precious interpretation.

ותטמא הארץ ואפקוד עונה, “the land became contaminated and I recalled its inequity upon it.” Nachmanides writes that the extremely harsh attitude of the Torah to people violating the laws of incest and sexual perversions is due to the fact that the very earth of the land of Israel is revolted by such behaviour and will seek ways and means to eject people from it that so abuse their virility. The commandments involving incest and sexual perversions are commandments involving one’s body, and apply universally, wherever we are, so that we may wonder why the Torah linked non-observance to the Canaanites being ejected by that land, and the Torah threatening a similar rejection by the land to the Jewish people if they did not observe higher moral standards? We must understand this in terms of the concept that what goes on in our world has parallels in the celestial regions. When the Creator created the universe, He imbued certain celestial forces with the ability to strongly affect the affairs in the terrestrial universe. Thus He appointed a “שר,” minister, for each of the nations of the earth who represented their interests in the celestial spheres. In our parlance this is part of the discipline known as astrology. Celestial bodies, their constellations, the times at which each appears in the sky and where in the sky, all play a role in the fates of these nations. All this occurs under the guidance of the Supreme Authority, Hashem, seeing that these bodies are not free to vary their orbits. In Daniel 10,13 we read as follows: ושר מלכות פרס עמד לנגדי עשרים ואחד יום, והנה מיכאל אחד השרים הראשונים בא לעזרני, “but the heavenly prince of the Persian kingdom stood opposed to me for twenty one days; when behold! Michael one of the foremost heavenly princes came to my aid.” Daniel describes a confrontation between the heavenly forces appointed on behalf of the Persian Kingdom and the people of Israel, and describes that if not for the intervention of Michael, an angel appointed to look after the special interests of Israel, the opposing forces might have prevailed. The representatives of these various nations are described as מלכים kings, G’d by comparison being known as מלך מלכי המלכים, the King who is the supreme King,” just as we have the term אלוקי האלוקים, “the Supreme Divinity,” indicating that there are forces that are also perceived as divine but on a much lower level. When Avraham in his prayer for the good people of Sodom, if any, speaks of השופט כל הארץ לא יעשה משפט?, “is the One Who is in charge of Justice in the whole universe not going to perform justice?” He implies that there are forces, divinely appointed, to dispense justice in their narrow domain. The important thing to remember is that above all these “kings”: or “ministers” appointed by G’d as His agents to look after the affairs of the nations of the earth, exclude Israel. There is a Supreme Being from whom all the others receive the parameters of their authority. The Land of Israel, in this respect, has always had rules of its own, as we know best from when the King of Assyria transplanted nations to that land to fill the void created through the exile of the Ten Tribes, and these nations fell victim to lions, etc., until they learned by experience that in order to survive on that land they had to adopt different mores. (Compare Baba Kamma 38 based on Kings II 17, 24-34) In short, seeing that the land of Canaan, even before the land was occupied by the Canaanites, was נחלת ה', a special land set aside for the Jewish people, this land tolerated deviant behaviour much less than other lands not predestined for G’d’s personal supervision. [I have condensed and rephrased some of this in the interest of brevity. Ed.] If we needed further proof of the above, consider the fact that our matriarch Rachel died a premature death immediately after crossing the boundary of this land. Yaakov’s having married two sisters while both were alive, something forbidden by the Torah (after it was revealed to the Jewish people) did not apparently bother G’d while Yaakov had not yet crossed the boundary into the Land of Israel. The moment he did, G’d applied stricter yardsticks to the mode of conduct expected of him and her. Apparently she had become pregnant with Binyamin before they had reached Shechem, otherwise who knows if Binyamin would have not have died with her. Consider also, that once in that land, Yaakov ordered his servants to dispose totally of any objects that had ever been used as objects of idolatry. (Genesis 35,2) The fact that the Torah while speaking of the punishment of the Canaanites did not list where they had been warned about their sexual depravity, is proof that all of mankind had been warned about this ever since first man was given the 7 basic commandments of conduct on G’d’s earth. The very fact that the Torah testifies to the Egyptians having been guilty of similar excesses but they were never expelled from their country, proves that different rules of tolerance apply on the soil of Eretz Yisrael Further proof of the special status of the soil of the Holy Land, is the fact that the כותים whom the Assyrian King had transplanted to the land formerly occupied by the Ten Tribes had never been punished by G’d when they had worshipped the same deities in the country of their origin. We should also consider the statements of our sages Ketuvot 110 that anyone residing permanently outside the Land of Israel is considered as not having a “G’d,” i.e. Divine protection. Gentiles, especially while in their own countries, are allowed to co-opt deities such as horoscopes as long as they recognise Hashem as the Supreme G’d and Creator. When the sages said: “as if they had no G’d,” they meant that the fates of such people were not presided over by Hashem personally, but that they were subject to mazzolot, astrological constellations, etc., something that is not the case for people living in Eretz Yisrael of which G’d has said that He has His eyes on it from the beginning of the year till the end of the year (Deut. 11,12). You must not counter that the verse from Daniel we quoted before in which Michael is described as the שר ישראל, the angel appointed by G’d as especially in charge of protecting the Jewish people, proves that they were not under the direct guidance of Hashem. First of all, the function of that angel is to implore Hashem to use His mercy on behalf of His people; secondly, the Jewish people with whom Daniel associated were all in exile, most of them in voluntary exile, at least after Cyrus ascended the Persian throne having defeated the Babylonians, and having enabled the return to Zion under Zerubavel. 52 years after the destruction of the Temple. [Jews who chose to remain in Persia, even under the premiership of Mordechai were a primary target of the statement we quoted from Ketuvot 110 that “Jews who live outside the Holy Land are considered as if they had no G’d.” Ed.] ותקיא, “it spit out, etc.” Once the measure of their sin which G’d was prepared to tolerate if they would repent, had become full, the fact that G’d decreed their destruction is considered by the Torah as if that decree had already been carried out. Alternately, the word ותקיא in the past tense, applies to the parallel phenomenon in the celestial regions. We have a similar statement in Numbers 14,9 when the impression by the majority of the spies that the land consumes its inhabitants was interpreted by Joshua and Calev as evidence that the protection of that nation’s guardian angel, described as צלם, had already abandoned this people so that they would fall into the hands of the Israelites like ripe plums.

But you shall keep My statutes and My ordinances, and you shall not do any of all these abominations — neither the native-born nor the proselyte who converts among you.

"And you shall keep My statutes" — those I have stated to you; these shall be the things that are forbidden. "And My laws" — that you carry out the prescribed judgment upon one who transgresses any of them. The reason for the repetition "and you shall not do any of these abominations" is to include the sojourner, for this commandment applies equally to the native-born and to the sojourner who dwells in the Land of Israel. And if you are discerning, you can understand that in the days of Jacob — who took two sisters in Charan — and of Amram — who married his aunt in Egypt — they were not defiled by them.

ושמרתם אתם את חקותי, not to reveal the nakedness, etc. ואת משפטי, by punishing the guilty offenders. ולא תעשו מכל התועבות, by observing these rules you will not become guilty of engaging yourselves in any of these abominable practices.

ועמדתם אתם, "and you shall observe, etc." The reason the Torah uses the word אתם, "you," after having already addressed the people as "you" by addressing them directly is, that this commandment is intended as a warning that the various statutes and ordinances not be disregarded by all the people who have been commanded to observe them. A person should not say that his only concern is that he personally should not be the cause of the particular commandment being ignored. By saying ושמרתם את חקותי, the Torah imposes upon each one of us the obligation to see to it that others observe these statutes. Seeing that such an obligation devolves only on the people with influence on the people, i.e. Moses and his court, the Torah added the word אתם to make sure that we understood who was being addressed here. It is the function of a Jewish court to ensure that the people observe G'd's commandments. In Torat Kohanim our sages said that the reason that Moses and his court are being charged with that responsibility is that they themselves were already in the habit of observing these commandments. This made them a natural for supervising observance of these laws by the whole nation. We have a similar approach to Song of Songs 4,12: גן נעול אהותי כלה גל נעול מעין חתום. "A garden locked up is my sister, a spring locked up a fountain sealed." Solomon used a well understood hyperbole to describe chaste behaviour by the Jewish people. The message is that the legislation about sexual prohibitions is not something new and strange to the Jewish people but that they had always excelled in chastity as part of their nature. The Torah may have alluded to this by reminding the people with the word אתם, i.e. "something that you are already used to." האזרח והגר, "the natural-born Jew as well as the proselyte." Torat Kohanim explains that were it not for the extra letter ה at the beginning of the word אזרח I would have interpreted these laws as applying only to the males. The same is true about the letter ה at the beginning of the word הגר. As it is, the laws also apply to the wives of the natural-born Jews as well as to the wives of the proselytes. Thus far Torat Kohanim. The only reason that the Torah had to write something at all in order to include the women is the word אתם which is clearly masculine. Another reason the Torah even mentions the proselytes is to tell us that if both the Israelites and the proselytes will adhere to these regulations on sexual chastity, then the deviations practiced by the local population will lose the power to make the land spew out its inhabitants. The tendency of the land to do this was limited to the period prior to the Israelites occupying it. In other words, it is entirely up to Israel and the proselytes if the land will or will not spew out its inhabitants. You are no doubt aware of Exodus 23,33 in which the Torah warns not to conclude any treaties with the local inhabitants of the land of Canaan as they are apt to persuade you to s...

ושמרתם אותם, “you will observe them (not to violate them).” Seeing that you have already learned to keep G-d’s commandments while in the desert, you will not feel doing so as a hardship when you take possession of your inheritance, your own land. Our author compares this to the poetic manner in which Solomon describes the chastity of Jewish women in Song of Songs 4,12, where he likens them to a securely locked garden. Seeing that Jewish girls guarded their virginity before marriage, they will not find it difficult to observe fidelity once they are married. את חקותי, the laws governing incest and chastity that were the principal subject of this portion. ואת משפטי, “and My social laws; you will be careful not to violate them.”

ושמרתם אתם את חקותי, You shall observe My decrees, etc.” What is the need for the pronoun אתם in this verse, seeing it is already a suffix at the end of the word ושמרתם? It is meant to exclude idolaters (non Jews) from the restrictions of blood relations marrying each other. If a Gentile wants to adopt these laws as applying to himself (as part of his religion) this is not legally possible. Just as when the Torah said in Genesis that man has to toil for his livelihood in the sweat of his brow, not setting aside a Sabbath for the Noachides when such toil was forbidden and thereby releasing him from toiling on the Sabbath, (Sanhedrin 58), so Gentiles who point to the Bible as showing that these laws apply to them also are in error seeing the Torah emphasised this applicability to Jews only by the extra word אתם.

For all these abominations did the people of the land who were before you commit, and the land was defiled.

The meaning of "for all these abominations the-el" — so that you know this, both you and your descendants, that you should keep them and the land will remain pure and not vomit you out. Ha-el and ha-elleh are equivalent, like ha-hem and ha-hemmah. This is not the view of the Gaon [Saadia].

כי את כל התועבות האל עשו אנשי הארץ, for these nations who did not observe these rules of incestuous sexual mores and who did not punish those who violated these rules, eventually committed all these abominations themselves, proceeding from a relatively minor sin to more serious sins; the same will happen to you if you will be lax in enforcing that these rules be observed, leaving it only to Me to punish the offenders. [it is interesting that the author predicts the outcome of allowing “consenting adults” to choose their own lifestyles. Ed.] This is why I implore you to observe this legislation in all its details.

And the land shall not expel you when you defile it, as it expelled the nations that were before you.

ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם THAT THE LAND VOMIT NOT YOU OUT — A parable! This may be compared to the case of a prince (i. e. a sensitive, refined person) to whom one gives a disgusting thing to eat which he cannot retain on his stomach but vomits it out thus Eretz-Yisrael is unable to retain sinners on its soil (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 14). The Targum renders it by: ולא תרוקן a term for ״emptying out״ — it (the earth) empties itself of them.

"As it vomited out" (ka'asher ka'ah) — this is a past-tense verb from the root of shatu ve-shakhru ve-kiyu (they drank, became drunk, and vomited), for the letters alef, heh, vav, and yod are interchangeable. As for "a land" being masculine — "the land could not bear them" (Gen. 13:6), with "the land" being masculine; or the word "it" (hi) is implicit, as though it read "as she vomited," similar to "came with the flock" (ba'ah im ha-tzon, Gen. 29:6).

ולא תקיא הארץ...כאשר קאה את הגוי, and by abstaining from these abominations the land will not spit you out eventually (for other sins) in the same absolute manner in which the people presently in that land are being disgorged by it.

ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם…כאשו קאה, "so that the land will not spew you out as it spewed out, etc." The Torah was not content with the statement in verse 25 that the land had already spewed out its inhabitants on account of their sins. It stresses the urgency of the matter much as what has been described in Torat Kohanim about the patient who receives a visit from a doctor who warns him not to eat certain things. This is followed by another doctor who warns the same patient that if he fails to heed his warning he would die just as another patient who had failed to heed the warning had died already. The patient takes the second warning more seriously than the first warning. Our verse may be viewed as the second warning.

ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם, “and the land will not spew you out.” If you do violate My commandments, not only will the land vomit you, but many of the sins you will become guilty of will carry the additional penalty of severing your souls from the Jewish people and their potentially eternal afterlife. כאשר קאה, “as it had already vomited;”we find here that the same land had already once spewed out its former inhabitants. The word קאה in the masculine mode suddenly, [as compared with תקיא at the beginning of this verse, Ed.] reminds us of a previous time when the Torah used it in the masculine mode in connection with the noun ארץ, which is usually a feminine noun. The other time it was described as performing something in the masculine mode was in Genesis 13,6 when the land of Canaan was described as incapable of supporting both the herds and flocks of Avraham and his nephew Lot, as they had become too numerous. Our author quotes several other examples of this as in: Isaiah 9,18, Zecharyah 14,10, and Genesis 29,6.

ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם, “so that the land will not vomit you, etc.” This verse belongs to the one following it reminding the Israelites that the former inhabitants had already been disgorged by this land. The Torah wishes to emphasize that the Israelites would not only be disgorged by the land if they failed to observe the laws of עריות, family purity, but they would be subject to the karet penalty in addition.

For whoever does any of these abominations — the persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.

העשת הנפשות EVEN THE SOULS THAT SHALL DO THEM [SHALL BE CUT OFF] — Both men and women are implied by the plural הנפשות (in contrast to the sing. יעשה in the beginning of the verse) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 20).

AND THE SOULS THAT DO THEM SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM AMONG THEIR PEOPLE. “His offspring is cut off, and his [own] days are shortened.” This is Rashi’s language. Now in the matters of excision mentioned in the Torah there are three different expressions. One is that which states, that man shall be cut off; a second one is that which says, and the souls which do them shall be cut off, or that soul shall be cut off from before Me; and a third form of expression is that which states, that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him. Now of a [a person doing work on] the Day of Atonement Scripture states, that soul will I destroy from among his people, and on this the Rabbis commented in the Sifra: “Excision is mentioned in many places in Scripture. But I do not know what it is. Now that it says, and I will destroy, it teaches that excision means ‘destruction’ [of the soul].”The explanation of the subject is as follows. If someone eats forbidden fat or blood and he is [still] a righteous person whose merits outweigh [his sins], but he could not control his desire for it, and thus stumbled in this sin, his days will be shortened and he will die in his youth before reaching old age, which is sixty years, but his soul is not destined for destruction; rather, its portion will be in the World of Souls in accordance with the person’s good deeds, since he was a righteous man, and he will also have a portion in the World to Come, which is the world after the resurrection. Of this case it is said, that man shall be cut off. But [in the case of] one who, as a result of this grave sin, now has more sins [in gravity] than his merits, the punishment of excision for this weighty transgression affects the soul that sins after it is separated from the body, and it is cut off from life in the World of Souls. It is with reference to those liable to this form of excision that Scripture alludes, in saying, that soul shall be cut off from before Me. And it is further written [in this connection], that soul will I destroy from among his people. These sinners do not suffer bodily excision [as is the case in the first type mentioned above], but may sometimes live to reach many days, even old age and hoary heads, as it is written, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his evil-doing. It is this which our Rabbis have said: “But he whose sins outweigh his merits, including a non-Jew who sins with his body — and Rav Papa said that this refers to a particular sin, that is to say, one who commits incest with one of the forbidden relations — these descend to Gehenna and they are punished for twelve months; after twelve months their bodies are destroyed, and their souls burnt, and the winds scatter [their ashes] under the soles of the feet of the righteous etc.” And there is a still more stringent form of excision, where both the body is cut off [from life in this world] and the soul [even from life in the World to Come]. It is of this [third kind of...

"The souls that do" (ha-nefashot ha-'osot) — publicly, you shall put them to death; and those who act in secret, I will cut them off.

כי כל אשר יעשה מכל התועבות האלה ונכרתו הנפשות, the reason why the land will spit you out if you violate even only part of these laws is that each one is a sufficiently serious violation in My eyes causing the deliberate perpetrator to be punished with the penalty of karet, total separation from the future of the people of the Jewish nation.

הנפשות, “the souls,” the Torah employs the plural mode to teach us that both parties, i.e. also the woman will be subject to the same penalty from heaven, i.e. G-d will see to it that they will be totally severed from their celestial origin, seeing that our sages basically guarantee that every Jew who did not forfeit it, will have a share in eternal life. [Compare: introduction to first Mishnah of “Ethics of our Fathers.” Ed.]

ונכרתו הנפשות העושות את התועבות האלה, “and the persons committing these (abominations) will be cut off from their people.” The karet penalty appears in the Torah in three different guises. There is a karet penalty which is applicable only to the body of the guilty party. There is also a karet penalty which applies only to the soul; finally, there is a karet penalty which applies both to the body and the soul of the sinner in question. A karet penalty applied to the body only is recognisable by premature death of the guilty person. If someone has led a generally righteous life but has become guilty of a single sin punishable by the karet penalty he is condemned to die prematurely, living maybe only half the number of years allotted to him when he was born. An example of such a karet penalty is the student (young scholar in the Torah Academy) who had touched his wife during the days she had to observe the ritual waiting period before immersing herself in a ritual bath after she had stopped bleeding from her monthly cycle (Shabbat 13). This is called כרת של שנים, a karet penalty resulting in the loss of years;[Seeing that the sin was committed inadvertently through ignorance and it is not recorded that merely touching one’s wife is subject to this terrible penalty even when committed knowingly, it is hard to understand that this should have been the only reason for the early demise of this young scholar. The scholar giving the widow this reason for her husband’s early death may have implied that G’d is especially strict with Torah scholars who ought to have been models of pious conduct. Ed.]. There is also another variation of the karet penalty being applied to the body only when the sin was committed late in the life of the guilty party so that the karet penalty through cutting off many years of the life of the person could no longer be applied. An example illustrating this type of the karet penalty is recorded in Moed Katan 28. We are told that when Rav Yoseph reached his 60th birthday he threw a party inviting all his colleagues the scholars. He celebrated the fact that he now had proof that up until that point in his life he had not been found guilty of the aforementioned karet penalty. He was, however, still subject to the karet penalty known as כרת של ימים, i.e. not living out his allotted time although he had reached what is considered “old age.” Rav Yoseph consoled himself with having definitely escaped the full impact of the karet penalty. Some scholars hold that the karet penalty described as כרת של ימים refers to sudden death, not being able to make preparations for one’s death. Seeing that there is some confusion concerning the matter and the application of כרת של שנים, early death, is easily recognisable whereas the כרת של ימים is not, our sages expressed the view that G’d gives notice of this. If an old man dies after only three days of sickness this is a sign that he did not die of old age (the time which had been allocated to him being up) but died of that penalty. This is what the Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2,1 had in mind when the rhetorical question was asked: “if an old man had eaten forbidden fat or had deliberately violated basic laws of the Sabbath how do we know that he was punished by the karet penalty for his sin?” The answer given by the Talmud is that if he died one day after being taken sick this reflects some kind of anger of G’d at that person. If he died after two days of sickness this reflects death due to a different degree of anger of G’d known as behalah. If he died after three days of sickness this indicates that he was guilty of the karet penalty we described as כרת של ימים. When the Torah writes the words ונכרת האיש ההוא מקרב עמו, “this man will be cut off from the midst of his people,” the type of karet penalty which is meant is that which applies only to the body of the person in question, be it obvious premature death or fairly sudden death at an advanced age (after 60). The soul of such a person will merit immediate transfer to the hereafter in the world of the souls and his resurrection at the time when this will take place is assured. The karet penalty which applies to the soul only applies to people who have sinned by violating very severe laws such as eating chametz on Passover, or eating on the Day of Atonement, or performing forbidden kind of work on that day. If he violated the עריות legislation in our chapter knowingly he is also subject to the karet penalty involving his soul. If the sum total of his sins was greater that his accumulated merits this penalty of karet is applied to his soul after it has been separated from his body. As a result he forfeits his share in the hereafter of the world of the disembodied souls. Concerning who is subject to such a karet penalty the Torah uses the formula ונכרתו הנפשות העושות, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא לפני, והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא, (such as here, or Leviticus 7,20; Leviticus 22,30; Leviticus 14,4 according to Sifra Emor 14,4). Although the last mentioned formula appears to speak of loss of physical life, it is possible that the Torah means that such a person does not experience premature physical death but destruction of his soul. After all, we find that many people guilty of deliberately flouting the laws of the Day of Atonement live to a ripe old age. Kohelet 7,15 already pointed out that some wicked people enjoy long life of undisturbed peace and tranquillity on earth. Examples of karet manifest both in early death of the sinner and in loss of his hereafter apply to such sins as idolatry or sins equally serious such as blaspheming the name of the Lord (Numbers 15,30). People guilty of this will be removed from life on earth a well as from any life after death. Concerning which sins are subject to this harsh penalty the Torah writes הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “this person (soul) will most surely be cut off and will continue to bear its guilt” (Numbers 15,31). Our sages in Shevuot 13 stated that the word הכרת speaks of the destruction of the bodies of the guilty party whereas the word תכרת refers to destruction of his soul. We must understand the meaning of the word מעמיה, “from its people,” as applying to instances where only the karet of the soul is meant to mean that this soul after death will no longer be part of the Jewish souls who congregate together in the world of disembodied spirits awaiting the resurrection on earth. A soul subject to this penalty will be obliterated. In the words of Samuel II 14,4 לא ישא אלו-הים נפש, “Will not G’d forgive a soul and make plans so that the outcast can find his way back?” [The author uses the wording to show that unless G’d devises a plan to save that soul from oblivion it will indeed be consigned to eternal destruction. Ed.] This is an example of what is meant by the wording: ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מלפני, “this soul will be cut off from My presence” (Leviticus 22,3). What we have written on the subject of karet thus far is the opinion of Ibn Ezra. [Rabbi Chavell points out that our author ‘s interpretation of Ibn Ezra contradicts what the latter writes on Leviticus 24,30. Ed.] According to our author Maimonides shares the opinion he has outlined so far as is evident from what he wrote in Hilchot Teshuvah chapter 8. I quote: “The reward in store for the righteous is a life in the world of the future, a life that does not know death. The retribution which is visited upon the wicked is that they will not participate in that life but will be cut off and die. Anyone who does not participate in that life dies and is obliterated just like an animal which dies. This is the karet of which the Torah said הכרת תכרת (Numbers 15,31). According to Shevuot 13 the word הכרת refers to death in this world, whereas the word תכרת refers to death of the souls of the people concerned. People who are subject to what is written in that verse will not experience any kind of life after death of their bodies.” Thus far Maimonides. We must question that seeing that purgatory, גהנם, was created specifically for sinners who had not repented, why should the people mentioned by Maimonides wind up without being aware that they have been punished for their sins? If the perfectly righteous are entitled to everlasting reward, why are not the absolutely wicked people sentenced to everlasting punishment? If the soul is totally obliterated there is obviously no way for such a sinner to experience retribution for his sins! If we were to say that the institution of gehinom was created only for the people whose lifestyle was what is called בינונים, i.e. that their accumulated merits and debits were in balance at the time they had died, it would follow that the totally wicked are better off than the people who have many merits to their credit! This is something that our intelligence cannot tolerate as being fair. Furthermore, assuming this was really the judgment administered to the wicked, i.e. obliteration of body and soul without suffering, why did the rabbis of the Mishnah in Sanhedrin 90 not enumerate the sinners subject to the karet penalty as one of the groups which forfeits life in the hereafter? We must understand the words in that Mishnah: “these are the people who do not have a share in the hereafter,” as referring to an individual claim to a share in the hereafter over and above the share in the hereafter which every Jew has assigned to him (as a birthright) unless he forfeits it. The people mentioned in that Mishnah do not forfeit the various outpourings of tzedakah, loving kindness from G’d’s treasuries which are dispensed to people much as alms are distributed to the poor, not as compensation for services rendered but as a demonstration of G’d’s loving kindness for mankind. If someone does not have any money and depends on being invited for the Sabbath by a neighbour, he is considered as such a person who does not receive his livelihood from G’d in is own right but only through an intermediary. Similarly, if even the souls which descend to gehinom are understood to enjoy respite from their sufferings on Sabbaths and holidays (if only to bring home to these souls that they failed to appreciate the value of these days while they were on earth), these souls are in a situation similar to the poor man we have just described. Even the souls which will never be rehabilitated in gehinom are accorded this kind of respite on the days we just mentioned. As a result of such statements by our sages we must conclude that the concept of total obliteration of a purely spiritual soul is something that does not exist, in fact maybe inherently impossible due to the nature of such a soul. The correct interpretation of the words ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה, “this soul will be cut off from its people (Leviticus 7,20),” is that it is cut off permanently from the original place assigned to it, the place it had originated from in the “quarry” where all the souls emanate. Besides, how can we understand the karet penalty as involving the total destruction of a soul in light of the statement in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 17 that these sinful souls are being judged in purgatory throughout the generations. Clearly the author of that statement refers to the continued existence of such souls, not their perdition. Such a continued existence would not make sense unless they had a future. Could there have been any group of people guilty of more fundamental sins than Korach and his co-conspirators who denied G’d and His prophet Moses, people who have been wiped out in this life and have not enjoyed the hereafter and yet they are suffering in gehinom, i.e. their souls continue to exist? In fact, they will be granted physical life at the time of the resurrection as we know from Sanhedrin 109 based on the verse Samuel I 2,6 מוריד שאול ויעל, “G’d who lowers to she-ol (gehinom) and raises up again.” The word מעמיה, “from its people,” means “from the other souls of its people.” Such a soul will remain separated from the people it has once belonged to. The very word ונכרתה, “to be cut off,” implies that the severing is one which is final, absolute. Just as a branch is lopped off the trunk which was its source of life, so this soul is severed from the people which used to sustain it by reason of its being part of it. In spite of all this the “solitary” soul will enjoy the radiance of the Shechinah in a place other than the one originally designated for it after it has completed its period of punishment. In other words, the word מעמיה limits the period of punishment, makes it less than absolute and eternal. The above is an opinion quoted by Nachmanides [According to Rabbi Chavell, seeing that the writings of Nachmanides on our verse do not bear this out at all. Ed.]. Similarly, when the Torah speaks of “this soul will be cut off from My presence,” the reference is to the site where G’d’s Shechina usually resides. This would refer to the land of Israel, as that country is the gateway to heaven, the place from which the souls make their ascent. This is the reason that pious people are so anxious to die there and be buried there in order to facilitate the ascent of their souls. The prophet Jonah (1,10) made this clear when he tried to escape the presence of the Shechinah in the land of Israel; by chartering a boat to take him away from there so that the Lord would not communicate with him and give him detailed instructions as to what he was to say to the people of Nineveh. We have a tradition that as a rule, prophets do not receive communications from G’d while outside the land of Israel. [A major exception was Ezekiel, whose entire prophetic career was in Babylon. Ed.] When the Torah refers to persons who have been contaminated by ritual impurity through contact with a dead person and who enter holy precincts without the benefit of having undergone purification, the penalty is described as ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מתוך הקהל, “this person (soul) will be cut off from the community (which practices the rules of ritual purity).” Seeing that the person described saw fit to separate himself from the community, his penalty is that G’d will separate his soul from the community in question. This does not mean, however, that another location will not be assigned to this soul after it has served the penalty decreed for it. The soul in question will not wind up like that of an animal just because that person neglected purification rites before entering sacred ground. Onkelos demonstrated his superior wisdom by refraining from translating the precise meaning of the karet penalty. Whenever it is mentioned he merely writes: וישתצי אנשא ההוא, “this man will be cut off” (compare 7,20 and 19,8, et al). The fact that in this instance Onkelos relates the penalty the Torah decrees to the body of the person by writing אנשא instead of נפש, appears to prove that he does not view the karet penalty as a wiping out of the soul. The philosophers think that the karet penalty is one that is aimed at the soul of the sinner, seeing that the soul is something preparatory, i.e. the instrument which enables the body of man to acquire any intelligence, etc. They bring ironclad proof for their contention by citing the fact that when man is first formed he has no vestige of intelligence. As he grows up physically his intelli- gence grows and his wisdom grows apace. All of this is proof that the soul is only a preparatory stage, a receptacle enabling the intelligence to be asssimilaed. If the soul itself were intellligent man should have demonstrated his intelligence from the day he is born, they say. It is well known that we do not consider the theories of the philosphers as binding on our outlook in life as their whole theories are based only on criteria which they can examine experimentally. We prefer to rely in matters like this on what we have been told by the prophets and our sages. They had traditions based on the true state of affairs. Our prophets and sages are all agreed that the soul enters our bodies in a perfect state, not something infantile that has to rely on biological growth and food. When the Torah reports that the creation of man was concluded with G’d blowing into man’s nostrils a נשמת חיים, a living soul, it is clear that since this soul came directly from the Creator that it was not something incomplete requiring the development of the body to give it value. Clearly, it, as distinct from the body, was something of an eternal nature. It originated in celestial regions, regions where the concept of death does not exist and is not operative. In view of the fact that the soul is something so infinitely superior to terrestrially created entities the expression ברא, “created,” (a term applicable to matters terrestrtrial) has not been mentioned in connection with it. The wisdom which the fetus was already equipped with while inside the mother’s womb became subject to loss of memory through the baby undergoing the traumatic experience of being born and leaving the secure environment in which it had existed up until that time. The Kabbalists compared this soul to a light which has been lit and sbsequently extinguished at the moment the baby enters this imperfect world. This is the meaning of what the Talmud said (Niddah 30 and 36) that a fetus has a light above its head enabling it to see from one end of the world to the other end. Do not be incredulous when you read such words, as it is a fact that man can lie in one part of the earth and in his sleep he sees (in a dream) matters which occur thousands of miles away. The whole concept is documented by Job 29,2-3: “O that I were as in months gone by, in the days when G’d watched over me, when His lamp shone over my head.” As soon as the baby leaves the mother’s womb an angel strikes it on its mouth causing it to forget all (the Torah) it had learned while in the mother’s womb. This is a meaning of Genesis 4,7 לפתח חטאת רובץ, “at the entrance (of the mother’s womb) sin lies in wait.” We also have a Midrash which states that ‘they place a burning light on top of the fetus’ head enabling it to see from one end of the world to the other. The Midrash quotes the verse from Job 29,3 as its source. It continues that an angel guides the fetus to Gan Eden every morning and shows him all the righteous people who sit there and enjoy their existence wearing their respective crowns on their heads. The angel says to the fetus: ‘you should know who the people are that you observe seated there. All these people were created just like you in the wombs of their respective mothers and upon leaving their mother’s wombs they went on to lead a righteous life on earth, observing the Lord’s commandments. In recognition of this they now enjoy life in Gan Eden.” The angel continues to advise the infant that he too will eventually die and if he observes G’d’s commandments during his stay on earth he will merit to share in the life just shown to him in Gan Eden. Failing this, he would wind up in a different kind of place altogether. In the evenings, the same angel would show this infant what goes on in Gehinom. He would show him all the suffering experienced by the inmates of that place, pointing out that these people were being punished for violating G’d’s laws while they lived on earth. He would warn the infant to consider all this carefully when he would leave his mother’s womb so that he would lead the kind of life G’d wants him to lead in his own interest. When the time comes for the fetus to leave his mother’s womb he would forget all that he had seen before. As a result of forgetting such important information the infant cries at the time he enters this life, knowing that there was something important he should have remembered. Thus far the Midrash. What the Midrash makes plain is that while in the womb of his mother the infant is fully able to comprehend all that the angel shows to him, i.e. he has a fully developed intellect, otherwise what is the point of the angel showing him all this. The reason that G’d decrees for the infant to forget all he has learned while inside his mother’s womb is to ensure that when he does lead the right kind of life on earth he will merit the reward in store for people who do this of their own free will. Nachmanides on our verse writes as follows: when the Torah writes that the sinning soul will be subject to the karet penalty this is the Torah’s way of informing us that the souls of people who are not guilty of sins involving this penalty will survive the death of their bodies. It is simply not the manner of a king who legislated penalties against people who violate his rules not to reward those who observe the rules in an appropriate manner. The soul of man may be considered like a shining light supplied by G’d (Proverbs 20,27) which was breathed into him by the mouth of the Supreme G’d personally as described in Genesis 2,7. The very fact that the soul as distinct from the body is not an “alloy” of four elements but is one single “component,” already predisposes it for eternal life as there are no possible imbalances between the constituent parts which could lead to its disintegrating such as the body. Just as the disembodied angels are creatures that endure indefinitely, the soul is a similar type of abstract intelligence intended to exist indefinitely. Keeping this thought in mind is why the Torah wrote in Numbers 15,31 עונה בה, “its sin remains with it,” i.e. seeing the soul does not perish, the sin which has become part of it does not perish either. Or better still, the only cause of causing the soul to perish is the sin which cleaves to it. Seeing that there is no other way the soul can perish there was no need for the Torah to spell out that innocent souls enjoy life of infinite length. This is what the sages had in mind when they said that the words מקרב עמה, “from the midst of its people” (Numbers 15,30), mean that its people will enjoy peace. (Compare Sifri Shelach 112). The very destruction of a sinful soul is proof that other souls live on indefinitely. This is why the Torah warns repeatedly about this penalty karet; it is something not “natural” but supernatural. When the Torah spells out assurances of certain rewards these are always in the nature of cause and effect, i.e. something “natural.” This is no different when the fate of the soul is the subject. There was no need to tell us that souls survive the death of the body as it is no more than natural for things to return to their origin sooner or later. A body, i.e. dust, returns to its origin dust, whereas the soul returns to its origin in the celestial spheres. Solomon has already spelled this out in Kohelet 12,7 when he said that “dust (body) returns to earth whereas the spirit returns to G’d.”

ונכרתו הנפשות העושות מקרב עמם, “all the people committing such violations will be cut off from their people. Nachmanides writes that the penalty known as karet by the Torah, comprises three different aspects. The first type of that penalty is meant when the Torah describes it as applied to ונכרת האיש ההוא, “the man in question will be cut off.” (Example Exodus 30,33, where the making of incense of the kind used in the Tabernacle is punished with this penalty.) The second type of karet is the type described in our verse, and the third type is meant when the Torah prefaces it with the words הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, (compare Numbers 15,31 where the Torah speaks of people blaspheming deliberately.) There is another, differently worded such penalty mentioned in connection with violating the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 23,30 where the Torah writes והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא, which means the same as והכרתי הנפש ההיא, “I will utterly destroy that person from membership in its people.” The Torat Kohanim explains that the word karet does not always mean that the hereafter of the person, נפש, so punished is automatically forfeited. This is why the Torah in Leviticus 23,30 used a variant. There is a difference in the application of the karet penalty if the person guilty of that particular violation had been driven by a craving to eat forbidden fat or blood, for instance, and that person in his overall lifestyle is very Torah-observant. In such a situation, the many merits he has accumulated protect him against the aspects of the karet penalty that extend beyond death, and he is punished by premature death in this life without losing his share in the hereafter. Shortening such a lifespan usually means death before reaching the age of 60, just as the people of the generation of the Exodus died before reaching 60, hence they had to stay in the desert for 40 years. On the other hand, as we know from personal observation, there are many wicked Jews who live well beyond the age of 60 on this earth. This does not mean that their sins have been overlooked, but that instead of applying that penalty to the physical parts of their lives, G’d has seen fit to reward them for their good deeds with long life on earth so that He does not have to reward them for such deeds after their deaths. The last mentioned group of people comprises most of the gentiles who practice the licentious sexual mores condemned by the Torah, and as a rule, after their physical death they experience painful punishment for a period of up to 12 months after which time their bodily remains are utterly destroyed and their souls are burned, their spirit being scattered under the soles of the feet of the righteous. There is a yet harsher type of the karet penalty in which both body and soul are utterly destroyed. It is applied to people whom the Torah in Numbers 15,30 described asאת דבר ה' בזה ואת מצותו הפר הכרת תכרת וגו', “he deliberately blasphemed Hashem, and violated His commandments. The use of the root כרת twice in that verse means that such people will not only be uprooted from this world but also from all parts of the hereafter. The only sins concerning which this word is used twice are idolatry and blasphemy. Our sages elaborated on this subject still further in tractate Shavuot, saying that also included in this harsh application of the karet penalty are people who deliberately mislead others by interpreting Torah in a manner that contradicts the halachah. Such people will not only die prematurely but they will not have any share in the eventual resurrection of the dead. Nor will they experience life in the hereafter, i.e. a life of the disembodied soul. We should remember that when the Torah uses expressions that deny some people life in the hereafter, this is the best proof of the fact that there exists such life. Otherwise, what does the sinner stand to lose by his rebellious conduct? Verses dealing with such penalties reinforce our belief in reward for good deeds being paid after our life on earth has come to an end. By saying that some souls will be cut off from what awaits them in the hereafter, the Torah is in effect saying that for the ordinary Jew much that is worth looking forward to is in store for them after their bodies have died. The word כרת is meant to conjure up in our minds the picture of a tree some of whose branches and leaves are being chopped off. Instead of the Torah speaking openly of a life in the hereafter, something we are to regard as natural, the Torah warns that sinners of certain categories will be miraculously denied that which is a natural state for the human being who lived in accordance with the Creator’s wishes. We have already explained elsewhere that all the promises of pleasant developments or the threats of disastrous events in the future which are spelled out in the Torah, must not be viewed as natural developments but as proof of Divine intervention in the fates of either the individual or the Jewish nation. This is why the Torah, when warning against violating the legislation involving incest, etc., speaks of the unnatural penalty of unnatural כרת, something which cannot be explained away as a natural development in terms of evolution, regression or whatever. There are thirty six sins which carry the penalty of karet, the vast majority of them involving violations of G’d’s sexual mores for man. Our sages do not tire of lumping together idolatry, shedding of innocent blood, and violating sexual mores, even between what are nowadays called “consenting adults,” as the most serious sins a Jew can become guilty of. Of the three, גלוי עריות, offences involving our libido, is always mentioned ahead of such crimes as murder, to show how abhorrent such a sin is in the eyes of the Creator. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3, chapter 41 that seeing man’s libido is a powerful drive, only the threat of terrible punishments is likely to act as a restraining influence on us.

And you shall keep the charge of My Word, so as not to do any of the customs of the abominations that were practiced before you, and you shall not be defiled by them; I am Hashem your God.

ושמרתם את משמרתי THEREFORE SHALL YE KEEP (OR, WATCH OVER) MY CHARGE — This is intended to caution the court regarding this (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 22). ולא תטמאו בהם אני ה' אלהיכם AND IF YE DEFILE NOT YOURSELVES THEREIN, I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — If, however, you do defile yourselves I shall no longer be your God (אלהיכם) since you have cut yourselves off from following after Me. What use then can I have of you? Consequently you deserve annihilation! That is why Scripture states: I am the Lord your God (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 22).

"And you shall keep My charge" — this charge it is, namely: not to do. "The meaning of 'which were practiced before you'" — so that a person should not say: since the ancients did so, I will do likewise. "The meaning of 'I am Hashem your God'" — this is connected to "My charge," so that the simple-minded should not ask: why this charge? — because I am Hashem your God; do all that I command you.

ושמרתם את משמרתי לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות, observe also the legislation which is in the nature of a protective fence against the major sin of indulging in actual sexual relations with the forbidden partners. Just as the legislation governing menstrual laws, eating of forbidden foods, sleeping with a woman ritually impure after giving birth, etc., have all been surrounded with what our sages call a סיג, “protective fence,” this legislation too has such a protective fence which must not be ignored except at your peril. The overriding consideration is לא תטמאו בהם, “do not become spiritually contaminated by ignoring these laws.”

ושמדתם את משמדתי, "You shall observe My ordinance, etc." Here G'd issues a warning to observe the "security fence" erected by the sages so as to make it unlikely that one breaches one of the Biblical commandments concerning sexual mores. The word משמרת refers to such a "fence." The reason the Torah added the words לבלתי עשות, "not to do, etc," is to explain that the "fence" is designed to protect us from even inadvertently breaching the עריות legislation. Even though a person would not become guilty of the penalties provided for people who willingly violate the prohibitons in this chapter, they would still defile themselves. In order to avoid this, the Torah urges "observe My protective fence." The Torah concludes the chapter with the words: "I am the Lord your G'd" in order to inform us that we are in danger of jeopardising this superior status even if we violate the commandments in this chapter only inadvertently. The abominations mentioned in this chapter are so serious that commission of any one of them even inadvertently creates a schism between the Israelite and his G'd. It makes it difficult for G'd's presence to remain amongst us. Such a presence can reside only amongst people devoid of abominable acts and concerned with maintaining their sanctity.

לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות, “not to become guilty of indulging in these abominable acts described previously.” Here the Torah refers to preliminary erotic acts which will eventually lead to violating the basic laws of chastity. They are kissing and hugging the members of the opposite sex, ogling, etc. אשר נעשו לפניכם, which were performed in this country before you inherited it. You must not argue that since it was the accepted norm in this land for many hundreds of years and the people got away with it, we the Jewish people can also adopt their lifestyle. אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I, the Lord, Am Your G-d.” You must not argue with Me, even when you do not understand the why’s and wherefore’s of My commandments. (Ibn Ezra)