Leviticus · Chapter 19

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel and say to them: You shall be holy, for I, Hashem your God, am holy.

דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל SPEAK UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This (the addition of the words כל עדת) teaches us that this section was proclaimed in full assembly because most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are dependent on it (contained in it) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 1; Vayikra Rabbah 24:5). קדשים תהיו YE SHALL BE HOLY — This means, keep aloof from the forbidden sexual relations just mentioned and from sinful thoughts. [It is evident that this is the meaning of קדשים תהיו because] wherever you find in the Torah a command to fence yourself in against such relations you also find mention of “holiness". Examples are: (Leviticus 21:7) “[They shall not take] a wife that is a harlot, or a profane etc.", and in the next verse "for I, the Lord, who sanctifieth you, [am holy]"; (Leviticus 21:15) “Neither shall he profane his seed (by the forbidden unions mentioned in the preceding verses) for I the Lord do sanctify him"; (Leviticus 21:6) "They shall be holy… followed by (v. 7) "[they shall not take] a wife that is a harlot or a profane" (cf. Vayikra Rabbah 24:4-6).

SPEAK UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Our Rabbis have already said that this section was addressed to the full assembly [of all Israel] because most of the fundamental principles of the Torah are dependent on it, this being the reason for the expression, speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel. This section, however, was mentioned here in [the book of] Torath Kohanim because it contains laws concerning the thanks-offering, and also because it states the punishments He commanded us to execute on those who do the abominable deeds mentioned [in the preceding sections], as well as [those for] the forbidden sexual relationships. These subjects have been included in this book [of Torath Kohanim] for the reason that we have written at the beginning of this book. YE SHALL BE HOLY. “Abstain from the forbidden sexual relationships [mentioned in the preceding section] and from [other] sin, because wherever you find [in the Torah] a warning to guard against immorality, you find the mention of ‘holiness.’” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Torath Kohanim I have seen it mentioned without any qualification [i.e., without any particular reference to immorality, as Rashi expressed it], saying: “Be self-restraining.” Similarly, the Rabbis taught there: “And ye shall sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy, for I am Holy. Just as I am Holy, so be you holy. Just as I am Pure, so be you pure.” And in my opinion, this abstinence does not refer only to restraint from acts of immorality, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, but it is rather the self-control mentioned throughout the Talmud, which confers upon those who practice it the name of P’rushim (Pharisees), [literally: “those who are separated” from self-indulgence, as will be explained, or those who practice self-restraint]. The meaning thereof is as follows: The Torah has admonished us against immorality and forbidden foods, but permitted sexual intercourse between man and his wife, and the eating of [certain] meat and wine. If so, a man of desire could consider this to be a permission to be passionately addicted to sexual intercourse with his wife or many wives, and be among winebibbers, among gluttonous eaters of flesh, and speak freely all profanities, since this prohibition has not been [expressly] mentioned in the Torah, and thus he will become a sordid person within the permissible realm of the Torah! Therefore, after having listed the matters which He prohibited altogether, Scripture followed them up by a general command that we practice moderation even in matters which are permitted, [such as in the following]: One should minimize sexual intercourse, similar to that which the Rabbis have said, “So that the disciples of the Sages should not be found together with their wives as often as the hens,” and he should not engage in it except as required in fulfillment of the commandment thereof. He should also sanctify himself [to self-restraint] by using wine in small amounts, ju...

The reason [the text says] "to the entire assembly of the children of Israel": to include the proselytes, since they are obligated in the laws of forbidden relations just as Israelites are. The reason this passage is placed after [the passage on] forbidden relations is so that [the people] should not think that observing forbidden relations alone is what will keep them in the Land. He therefore tells them that there are other commandments as well, and if they do not observe them they will be expelled from the Land — and these are the Ten Commandments mentioned [here]. For He warns against idol worship after saying "for I am holy, Hashem," which corresponds to the First Commandment in the view of many. "You shall not swear by My name falsely" corresponds to the commandment "You shall not take [the name of Hashem your God in vain]". "My Sabbaths you shall observe" corresponds to "Remember the Sabbath day." Also, "A man — his mother and his father shall he revere" corresponds to the commandment "Honor your father and your mother." Also, "You shall not stand over the blood of your fellow" corresponds to the commandment "You shall not murder." The passage of the designated bondwoman is a warning against adultery even when she [would be] free. Also, "You shall not steal, and you shall not deny, and you shall not lie, and you shall not oppress your fellow" corresponds to the remaining three [commandments].

דבר אל כל עדת...קדושים תהיו; after the presence of G’d had manifested itself among the Jewish people, sanctifying them for eternal life, as had been the meaning of the verse in Exodus 19,6 “you shall become for Me a nation of priests a holy nation,” and taking into consideration G’d’s statement in Leviticus 11,45 “I have led you out of the land of Egypt in order to be your G’d and your becoming holy,” G’d had in the meantime separated the Jewish people from impurity through the legislation concerning forbidden foods, skin eczemas, ritual impurity contracted through cohabitation with menstruant women, or women afflicted with excretions from their vaginas at times other than when they were experiencing menstruation. G’d had also elaborated on other ritual contaminations contracted through sinful contact. The objective of all these parts of Torah legislation was to establish a nation that could be described as “holy,” not least of it the legislation concerning incest. At this point, i.e. after achieving this “holiness,” i.e. emulating the Creator’s holiness in the maximum manner possible for creatures, the Torah spells out this objective by saying כי קדוש אני, “For I the Lord am holy;” the message is that the original intention in creating man in the image of G’d (Genesis 1,26) had already had as its declared goal for this “image” to become something constant. The Torah now proceeds to list laws which appeared on the first of the Two Tablets, whose objective it is to ensure enduring life for the Jewish people as we explained on Exodus 20,11.

אל כל עדת בני ישראל, "to the whole community of the children of Israel." Torat Kohanim explains why the Torah writes the words "to all." Seeing that most of the important commandments of the Torah are contained in this portion Moses addressed them to the whole nation as outlined in Eyruvin 54. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi describes the logistics of this [seeing they did not have a public address system in those days, Ed.] as distinctly different from other occasions when Moses revealed legislation. Whereas usually the people approached Moses in group after group- "a group" meaning a בית אב,- in this instance they all approached simultaneously. This is very difficult. If the Rabbi meant that whereas usually the elders came to Moses first to be followed by the people at large in groups, Moses would have had to repeat the same lecture more than 65 times. According to the Baraitha in Eyruvin 54 Moses taught the same legislation only four times. The Talmud there describes that by the time Moses taught the legislation to the people at large, Aaron had heard it four times, etc. If Rabbi Mizrachi meant by the words "group after group," that Aaron was one group, Nadav and Avihu a second group, and the elders a third group, whereas in this instance the Israelites, the elders, Nadav and Avihu and Aaron all came at the same time, the question is why Moses used a different system when he taught all the other commandments. Why did Moses not teach all of the people these commandments 4 times? Surely if the other commandments warranted that Aaron would hear them 4 times, in this instance it was warranted that all the people hear these commandments 4 times! It would be better if they heard it each time from Moses directly than just once, and the other times only from people who themselves had heard it only from Moses. I believe there are one of two possible reasons for the manner in which Moses normally taught the Torah precepts G'd had revealed to him. 1) He wanted to accord honour to the different levels of spiritual achievements attained by his respective listeners. Accordingly, he would first honour Aaron, then his sons, followed by the elders, and finally the people at large. 2) He wanted to ensure true transmission of his words. Seeing that he taught each group of people separately, when they in turn discussed what they had learned they would be able to compare if each one remembered exactly the same. If the entire people had learned the same lesson from Moses four times in a row, there would not have been any way to compare any discrepancies due to someone's faulty memory. This is something that the listener would be well aware of. It would therefore have been better to follow the pattern of teaching the legislation separately to different groups at different times in this portion also. Why would Moses deprive Aaron of his privileged status when teaching this legislation, or, why would he deprive everyone of the chance to double-check if he heard and remember...

דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל, “speak to the entire congregation of the Children of Israel;” This verse teaches that this legislation was revealed to the whole people while they were all assembled. What is the reason for this? Because so many laws are contained in it that address all the people in their daily lives. Our author enumerates a synopsis of all these laws contained in the 37 verses of this chapter showing how even the Ten Commandments were repeated here also. This chapter follows immediately after the chapter on prohibited sexual relationships so that the Jewish people should not think that in order to remain in the Promised Land they need merely to abstain from these prohibited relationships, when there are indeed many other commandments that they need to observe to stay in the Land. קדשים תהיו “be holy” by observing all the commandments that I give you in this chapter.

תאוה נהיה תערב לנפש ותועבת כסילים סור מרע, “Desire realized is sweet for the soul; it is an abomination to the wicked to abandon evil.” (Proverbs 13,19). In this verse Solomon warns man not to give in to his various physical urges but to suppress them and to vanquish them. Anyone who succeeds in banishing his physical urges is considered on the spiritual level of an angel. Conversely, anyone who encourages his physical urges and wants to indulge them is on the spiritual level of an animal. When we take a look at the creatures created on the sixth day of creation we find that all the creatures created prior to man can be divided into two groups: 1) abstract intelligences; 2) creatures bound to earth by their bodies. The first group comprises the angels, creatures which are totally disembodied, divorced from anything material. The second group, such as the trees and other kinds of vegetation as well as living creatures are all composed of matter, totally devoid of intelligence. Each of the two categories of creatures performs the tasks allotted to them by their Creator, the former group using their intelligence, the latter using their instinct. Both these groups are not free agents but have to obey the instructions received from their Creator, using either their natural instincts or their G’d - given intelligence but neither being overtly interfered with. It follows that on the sixth day a third category of creature was created, one which represents a blend of the previous two. It was a creature which embodied both intelligence similar to the disembodied angels, and at the same time is made up of a body and responds to natural urges similar to the animals. This category of creatures was the human species. Man is not dominated either by the dictates of his intelligence or those of his natural urges. The principal difference between man and other creatures it that he possess willpower, i.e. decisions made by him are free-willed. If he is circumspect he can successfully overcome the natural urges he has in common with the animals. In that event he frees himself of the influence exerted upon him by the physical raw material he is made of. If he fails to resist the urges which result from his being made up of physical matter, he negates the influence of his intelligence, the element which makes him similar to the angels. As long as Adam did not sin and as a result became enmeshed in the urges common to animals he was a true angel of the Lord although possessed of a body. He was all intelligence, unblemished. As a result, he was fit to live forever (compare author’s comments on Genesis 2,17), similar to the angels who reside in the celestial regions. He had been placed in Gan Eden, the choicest location on earth. Seeing that he did sin, decided to respond to physical urges, he was deprived of the intelligence which had covered him like a garment and was dressed in earth-grown material. As a result he was expelled from Gan Eden and given herbs as food, similar to the animals. This is the meaning of Genesis 3,18: “you shall eat the herbs of the field.” Prior to that he had been eating fruit grown on trees, products of plantings by G’d’s own hand. Keeping in mind how Adam was demoted, or demoted himself, we must realise that it is to our advantage to break the hold that these natural urges have on us, something which if achieved is תערב לנפש, “will be sweet for the soul;” Solomon speaks of greed and similar instincts which, if they have been “broken,” conquered by man, are something sweet and pleasant for man’s intellectual faculties. The word נהיה in that verse, an unusual word, is similar in construction to Daniel 8,27 נהייתי ונחליתי, “I was broken up and ill;” we also have a similar word in Exodus 9,3 הנה יד ה' הויה, “here the Lord’s hand is about to break, etc.” Solomon urges man to break the hold these natural instincts have over him seeing that they are רע, evil. The Torah already told us that such urges are evil in Genesis 8,21 כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, “for the instinctive urges man’s heart is exposed to are evil, ever since his early years.” Seeing that the person who does break the prison walls represented by these urges is in effect סר מרע, distancing himself from evil, Solomon adds that תועבת כסילים סור מרע, that “abandoning evil is something abominable in the eyes of the fools.” Whatever is pleasant for the soul is by definition an abomination for the body, the home of these baser instincts of man. It is a well known fact that he who allows himself to follow these base instincts is thereby violating all of the Torah’s precepts. Following one’s instincts may be divided into four categories, four levels; 1) one does so theoretically, allowing himself to feel the urge and be titillated by it. 2) One speaks about these urges, a form of coming closer to giving in to them; 3) one indulges these urges by consuming the object of the temptation with one’s mouth, tasting it; 4) one abandons one’s entire body to the delights offered by such allure. As to fantasizing about sin Solomon already taught us that such fantasies are culpable as if the sin had actually been committed in deed. In Proverbs 15,13 he told us that “a happy heart makes for a cheerful face, whereas a sad heart causes a despondent spirit.” Solomon did not want to tell us the obvious, rather he meant that there is a direct relationship between fantasizing about sin and translating the fantasy into practice. Just as the thoughts of the heart influence the body and its appearance, so sinful thoughts influence the organs with which these thoughts are carried out. The heart is to those organs what the root of a tree is to its branches. The second category of following one’s instincts, i.e. speaking about such fantasies involves such sins as gossiping, character-assassination, using foul language. It is forbidden by Biblical decree. Solomon refers to it when he said that “the mouth of fools expresses folly” (Proverbs 15,2). Immediately following that verse he wrote that “the eyes of G’d are everywhere; they behold the good and the wicked.” What Solomon meant was that G’d pays close attention to the power of speech being abused as well as to those who use that power judiciously and constructively. G’d will punish the guilty. The prophet Isaiah also castigated people who abuse their mouths to speak foul words when he said: “(G’d) will not spare their youths...for all are ungodly and wicked and every mouth speaks impiety” (Isaiah 9,16). The third category, i.e. eating forbidden things in response to one’s instincts, overriding G’d’s laws, is also a violation of a Biblical law. Concerning such lapses David said (Psalms 40,9) “Your teaching is in my entrails.” David congratulated himself that he never fell victim to the temptation to fill his entrails with forbidden food. David did not merely refer to food which was forbidden per se, but to gorging himself on permitted food, indulging his appetite instead of eating only in order to meet the requirements of his health. Solomon described a righteous person as someone who אוכל לשבוע נפשו, “eats in order to satisfy his soul (as opposed to his body)” Proverbs 13,25. In Proverbs 21,23 Solomon elaborates further saying that “he who guards his mouth and his tongue keeps his soul from troubles.” The fourth category of temptation one may fall victim to is the one involving one’s entire body. It concerns indulging one’s carnal instincts indiscriminately. There is no need to dwell on the list of incestuous relations the Torah has already outlawed. The temptation to overindulge in sexual activity with a partner who is officially permitted is what one has to suppress, conquer. This concludes the four categories of temptations that the body is exposed to and which it is incumbent upon us to resist. Whence do we know that if someone allows himself to pursue these various pleasures available to the flesh that he thereby violated the entire Torah legislation? Solomon provided us with the answer to this question when he wrote (Proverbs 18,1) לתאוה יבקש נפרד, בכל תושיה יתגלע, “a man exclusively concerned with satisfying his desires separates himself from all wisdom (Torah).” The word נפרד, “alone, abandoned,” used in that verse means that he who pursues physical gratification will find himself isolated, alone. He will lose his friends and companions in the process as his friends will not want to expose themselves to these temptations. A person guilty of such pursuits is in effect “kicking” at the Torah. This is what is meant by the words בכל תושיה יתגלע. This is why the Torah asks us not only to refrain from what is forbidden but to refrain from and to suppress desires as these might ultimately lead us to violate what is forbidden outright. Considerations such as this led our sages (Yevamot 20) to formulate the slogan: קדש עצמך במותר לך, “sanctify yourself by refraining from that which is permitted to you!” Anyone who deliberately separates himself from such urges is described as “holy.” The Torah applies this flattering description to the Nazir who undertook to abstain from intoxicating drink (wine) and all grape-products as well as from contact with ritual impurity, and who lets his hair grow to show that he is doing this. The Torah (Numbers 6,5) writes concerning such a person: “holy shall he be, the growth of his hair on his head shall grow.” Just as such a Nazir is holy, the Israelites at Mount Sinai were holy as we know from Exodus 19,6: “and you shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests, an holy nation.” The Israelites were commanded to be holy in order that they should separate themselves from the cravings of this world. קדושים תהיו כי קדוש אני ה' אלו-היכם, “You shall be holy for I am holy, Hashem, your G’d.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word קדוש, means isolating oneself, being apart. This is an exhortation to the entire Jewish people to be chaste, to practices noble character traits and to impress one’s children with the importance of these virtues. Children then will look up to their parents as if the parents truly were G’d’s representatives on earth. In turn they will testify thereby that the Creator Himself is their supreme authority, the original “patriarch” who has called this world into existence. In order to make this point, our paragraph immediately commences by telling us that we must revere mother and father and observe G’d’s Sabbaths. (verse 3). The linkage of these two commandments is that the Sabbath is testimony to the fact that G’d created the universe (Exodus 20,11). The reason the Torah writes the commandment to revere mother and father, letting the mother precede the father in importance (as opposed to a similar commandment in the decalogue where the Torah writes: “honour your father and your mother”), is that it is natural for children to love the mother more than the father and to fear the authority of the father more than that of the mother. The Torah wants to ensure that we do not make such distinctions in our relationship with our respective father and mother. If both parents were to agree that the child is to violate the Sabbath, the Torah adds immediately: “and you shall observe My Sabbath days,” meaning that this commandment overrides even a joint command by father and mother to the contrary. The addition of the words: “I am the Lord your G’d” at the end of verse three means that G’d is the supreme authority for both the child and his parents and thus has overriding authority when there is a conflict involving the loyalties of the child. Both the parents and the child are obligated to carry out His instructions. The Torah appends the commandment not to serve any other deities nor to make molten images for oneself to make the point that even if one recognises the Lord as the supreme authority but denies that He created the world out of no pre-existing raw material one is considered an heretic, guilty of idolatry. One must not turn to idols as this implies that one considers that they are a substantive force. The words אל תפנו, “do not turn,” are not so much an instruction not to face the idols but that in one’s heart one must not believe that there is anything to them and to what they purport to represent. We must consider idols as something devoid of any theological meaning, totally powerless to exert influence of any kind on anybody. The use of the root פנה here is similar in meaning to Deut. 29,17: “whose heart turns away today from the Lord, etc.,” or Deut. 30,17 “if you will turn away and not listen.” The Torah adds that “you must not construct molten images for yourselves,” i.e. even though you are aware that such images are totally meaningless in theological terms, have no power or value. The reason the Torah appends the words: “I am the Lord your G’d,” means that ‘I can be trusted to pay you your reward, i.e. Hashem, (attribute of Mercy) but eloheychem, (attribute of Justice) in the event you do something for which you will deserve punishment.’ It is also possible to explain the directive: “you shall be holy” at the beginning of our Parshah as applying to the sanctity of one’s thoughts, one’s intentions, similar to what the sages said (Shevuot 18) that when engaging in the act of marital relations with his wife both parties should harbour only pure thoughts, not wanting to merely indulge their libido. Seeing that such purity of thought at such a time has a genetic impact on the kind of children produced through the act of cohabitation, the Torah even referred to the children born as having been born “for Me” (compare Ezekiel 23,37: “and even their children which they had born to Me they passed before them the idols, -specifically the Moloch-that they may be consumed”). The prophet speaks of children conceived in holiness as children born to G’d. This is applicable to all the Israelites whose existence is dedicated to G’d. The reason this paragraph is addressed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of the Children of Israel,” is because these laws apply to males and females equally. When Moses assembled the people and gave them the directive to build the Tabernacle and for the Israelites to donate materials for that project we also find the directive addressed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of the Children of Israel” (Exodus 35,1). There too the directive was addressed directly to the males and the female members of the community. The reason for the formula איש אמו ואביו תיראו, is that there are three partners involved in bringing about the birth of a human being, G’d, father, and mother (Kidushin 30). The Torah mentions the mother first as it is a great achievement for the mother to attain the level of sanctity desired when she cohabits with her husband. The father, partner number two, is mentioned next as his contribution to the fetus is critical, i.e. his sperm is the most important ingredient. G’d is mentioned last as He contributes the soul, an essential component, (but only after husband and wife have already started the fetus). The words: “I am the Lord your G’d” at the end of the verse describe that G’d is the third party in the creation of the baby. The third partner, G’d, is alluded to in the words “and observe My Sabbaths,” seeing that amongst observant people cohabitation takes place primarily on Friday nights. The word תשמרו, is appropriately translated as “waiting.” We find the word שמר used in this sense in connection with Yaakov “waiting for something to occur” when told of a dream his son Joseph had which on the face of it defied interpretation (Genesis 37,11). Our sages in Berachot 3 use the word in a similar manner when they speak about שמר לי על הפתח, as the subject Elijah there waiting for Rabbi Yossi. The prophet Isaiah 56,4 speaks of the Lord having an encouraging message for the eunuchs and sterile men who observe the Sabbaths (although unable to sire children and hope for G’d’s partnership being manifest in the children they will father, resp. not father). The subject there are not people unable to produce viable sperm but people who deny themselves the opportunity of cohabiting with their wives except on Friday nights, thus observing the Sabbaths. Our sages interpret the words אשר פריו יתן בעתו, “someone (normally tree) who will give its fruit at its appropriate time” (Psalms 1,3) as an allusion to people who indulge in cohabitation with their wives only on Friday nights, thus observing the Sabbath in a special manner (compare Ketuvot 62). G’d rewards such people by granting them יד ושם טוב מבנים ובנות, “a memorial and name better that physical sons and daughters.” [This is the end of the verse in Isaiah 56,4 and ignores the literal promise of that verse which is understood as consoling people who have no children by suggesting that there are greater rewards than biological offspring. Ed.] There are those who claim that the reason the prophet singles out Sabbath observance by males who are unable (biologically) to have offspring is because the commandment to observe the Sabbath is linked by the Torah to future generations, i.e. applicable to the children and children’s children of a person (Exodus 32,16). As a result, a person who is aware that he would never have any children might balk at observing all the laws of the Sabbath and requires special encouragement. G’d therefore promises them a reward which is greater than their merely having physical offspring. The next verse in our paragraph exhorts us not to turn to idols, (verse 4). The connection with the previous verse is that it is forbidden to look at females (in order to arouse one’s libido). Our sages (claim that when one looks at females because they are females one places oneself in the same company as people who turn to idols, deities, even if they only admire the artistry involved in their construction (compare Zohar Kedoshim 84,1). Seeing that it is also forbidden to fantasize about someone else’s wife, the words: “do not make a molten image for yourselves” in the same verse complement the thoughts we just mentioned. A Midrashic approach: The “be holy for I am holy,” with which our portion commences reflects the fact that the concept of a nation such as Israel inspired G’d to create the universe in the first place. Expressed differently: Israel shared G’d’s holiness already before the universe or the people were created. At this time G’d decided that the time had come for the people of Israel to demonstrate this latent holiness in actual visible fashion (compare Tanchuma Kedoshim 2). If we were to illustrate this concept in a parable the matter is similar to a king who has become engaged to a bride, i.e. she has become designated for him exclusively. This prompts the king to say: “seeing that I am the king and you are going to become my queen you ought to share my glory. Seeing that my glory is my title “king,” you ought to share this glory of mine.” Applied to G’d and Israel respectively, G’d’s glory being His being holy, He is now (immediately prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai) desirous of His fiancee the Jewish people sharing this holiness. The way to achieve this is to observe the laws of the Torah, plus. This is precisely what happened prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai when G’d told Moses to “sanctify” the people (Exodus 19,10), whereas G’d Himself sanctified the people when He said: “you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19,6). Rabbi Levi (Vayikra Rabbah 24,5) claimed that the entire Ten Commandments are recorded in this portion. Whereas in the Decalogue we read אנכי ה' אלוקיך, “I am the Lord your G’d,” in our portion (19,4) we read אני ה' אלוקיכם. Whereas in the Decalogue we are told לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים, “do not have any other gods and do not make yourselves a hewn image, etc.,” we are told here (verse 4) “do not make yourselves a molten image.” Whereas in the Decalogue we are told not to utter the name of the Lord in vain, we are told here not to swear a false oath using the Lord’s name (verse 12). Whereas we are told in the Ten Commandments to observe the Sabbath, we are told here to observe the Lord’s Sabbath days (verse 3). Whereas we are told in the Decalogue to honour father and mother, we are told here to revere mother and father (verse 3). Whereas we are told in the Ten Commandments not to commit murder, we are told here “not to stand idly by when we see someone being murdered.” (19,16). In the Ten Commandments we are told not to commit adultery, whereas in our portion here we are being told: “do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot” (verse 29). The Decalogue commands us not to steal, whereas here we are told: “do not steal” (19,11). In the Decalogue the Torah warns against bearing false witness against someone, whereas in our portion we are warned: “do not commit character assassination, defamation” (19,16). In the Decalogue we are exhorted not to covet other people’s possessions, especially his wife, whereas here the Torah commands us to: “love what is your neighbor's just as what is yours,” i.e. not to covet what is his” (19,18). A Kabbalistic approach: ...

Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: You shall be holy. He specified all the congregation because a congregation [edah] is not less than ten people, and there is no sacred matter [davar shebikdushah that can be said] with less than ten. Therefore, it says here, Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, to each and every congregation, that they should be holy by virtue of being permitted to participate in every sacred matter through which they sanctify His blessed name. This is what is meant by for I am holy. And He prefaced this portion with the matter of the sanctity of Israel, for as it is written before the giving of the Torah, And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6), so too in this portion all ten commandments are alluded to, as Rabbi Levi said (see Vayikra Rabbah 24:5). Therefore, He prefaced [it] with sanctity to endear the commandments to them, saying that through them they will merit the level of sanctity. And do not say that sanctity is a minor matter, for I am holy — is it insignificant in your eyes to liken the design to its Creator, as it were? And our Sages said (Vayikra Rabbah 24:6), “Wherever you find a fence around sexual immorality, there you will find sanctity.” And you already know that the term “fence” indicates something permitted by the law, yet we make a safeguard and fence to distance ourselves from prohibition. Therefore, they said that wherever you find a fence around sexual immorality, there you will find sanctity, because all sanctity refers even to that which is permitted, as our Sages said (Sifrei Re’eh 102), “Sanctify yourself with what is permitted to you.” And the sanctity of the Nazirite proves this. Therefore, they said that in a place where a fence around sexual immorality is mentioned, you find sanctity. So too at the giving of the Torah, Do not approach a woman (Exodus 19:15), meaning even what was permitted to them, therefore He called them a holy nation. And similarly here it says, Do not approach to uncover nakedness (Leviticus 18:6) — an approach that leads to sexual immorality, which is a fence and safeguard against sexual immorality. Likewise, A woman who is a prostitute or defiled (Leviticus 21:7) refers to things permitted to ordinary Israelites, but the priest needs a fence and safeguard to forbid even what is permitted to an Israelite, in order to sanctify him with tremendous sanctity. And regarding what it says “You shall be holy,” there is in its meaning both a language of command and a language of informing about the matter, similar to and you shall be for Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6) which is informing about the matter. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, informed them of the reward for those who fence themselves off from forbidden sexual relationships, that through this they will be holy to their God.

קדושים תהיו, ”you shall be holy;” Our sages in Torat Kohanim state that this was one of the portions of the Torah which was read out in public once every seven years on Sukkot on the occasion of “hakhel,” the public reading of the Torah by the King before the assembled nation, men women and children (compare Deuteronomy 31,10, the penultimate of the 613 commandments). The reason was that it contains so many of the basic laws of the Torah, such as the laws about offering personal voluntary peace-offerings, the penalty for disregarding the laws abut incest and sexual mores. We must understand that holiness can only develop as a result of abstaining from all the items that the Torah has described as an abomination in the eyes of Hashem. Nachmanides writes that he has examined the wording in his edition of the Torat Kohanim, and has not found anything spelled out there about being especially פרוש, i.e. keeping one’s distance from the subject covered by sexual mores, but that we are to be generally פרושים, discreet, and discriminating in our conduct, as a result of which holiness will develop. [My edition of the Torat Kohanim, printed in Torah Shleymah bears out what Nachmanides writes. Ed.] G’d is quoted as saying: “just as I keep apart (from contact with what is unbecoming, so shall you keep yourself apart from contact with matters that are unbecoming for you.” It follows that the subject of פרישות includes abstaining and keeping one’s distance from all the subject matter mentioned in the Talmud as subject to such warnings by our sages. Nachmanides uses as an example the fact that whereas on the one hand, the Torah has permitted sexual intercourse, it imposed limitations with whom such sexual intercourse may be indulged in, similarly, it has also permitted the eating of foods which are palatable and non poisonous, but has imposed limitations in forbidding Jews foods which gentiles clearly enjoy without apparent harmful effects. Holiness, if aspired to, is therefore possible by imposing upon oneself restrictions and not considering everything that has not been expressly forbidden as permitted, but to train oneself to be moderate in enjoying the material attractions the world has to offer. These attractions may be enjoyed when they are intended to make the performance of a commandment more meaningful both esthetically and artistically, for instance. A person intent on attaining a level of holiness would not seek out such attractions for their own sake. [When someone loves silver trinkets and collects them, this does not further his path to attaining holiness, although he did not do something forbidden. If, however, he indulges his whim by buying beautiful ethrog boxes, mezuzah housings, kiddush cups, etc., then he may at one and the same time indulge his sense of what is esthetically beautiful, and come closer to attaining degree of holiness. Our sages, in limiting the frequency of marital relations with one’s wife even, suggested that a Torah scholar limit himself to such marital intercourse once a week, while an ordinary uneducated worker is allowed to indulge in such activity more often. (Compare Chagigah 18, Berachot, 22 and other places in the Talmud) Nachmanides points out that it is possible not to violate a single one of the 613 commandments in the Torah and still not only to remain far from “holy,” but to continue to be a gross and uncouth individual, eating to excess, drinking to excess, indulging in legally permitted sex at every opportunity, etc. If the ideal of a Torah personality could be the result of merely not violating any of the 613 commandments, Moses would not have had to write in Deut. 6,18 ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה', “do what is fair and good in the eyes of Hashem.” In halachic parlance, our approach to life should be to act לפנים משורת הדין, “to stay well within what is allowable legally.” The meaning of the dictate in our verse therefore is: כי קדוש אני ה' אלוקיכם, “for I, the Lord your G’d am holy.” Naturally, G’d did not expect that we, the creatures, become like He, the Creator. But, He hopes and expects that we will try and emulate as many of His characteristics as it is possible for us to emulate, seeing we are only creatures. By doing this we can achieve דבקות, a measure of close attachment to the Divine, something the Torah encouraged us to do on several occasions (compare Deut. 10,20; 11,22; 30,20) In a way, this was the message of G’d revealing Himself to us in the first of the Ten Commandments.

קדושים תהיו, seeing that most commandments are designed to sanctify you and to be observed by you.

קדושים תהיו, “you shall strive to attain holiness.” The meaning of this verse is made clear in verse four where the Torah adds that “you must not turn to idols, etc;” even if the purpose of your preoccupation with idols is to understand why they are completely useless, so that you think that what you do is לשם שמים, “for the sake of heaven,” do not do so! Seeing that only the Lord is holy, there would be no point in studying other nations’ ideologies.

Every man shall hold his mother and his father in reverence, and My Sabbath days you shall observe. I am Hashem your God.

איש אמו ואביו תראו means, EVERYONE OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER; this is the literal sense. The Halachic explanation of the verse, however, is as follows: Since Scripture says איש I have here only the law that a man must fear his father and his mother, whence do I know that this applies also to a woman? Because Scripture states תיראו (in the plural), it is evident therefore that it speaks here of two (man and woman). But if this be so (that Scripture means to include a woman also) why does it use the term איש, a man? Because it is the man who has the means to do it, whilst the woman is under the control of others (what she does is dependent upon her husband’s consent)(Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 3; Kiddushin 30b). אמו ואביו תיראו EVERYBODY OF YOU SHALL FEAR HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER — Here Scripture mentions the mother before the father because it is manifest to Him that the child fears the father more than the mother and therefore by mentioning the mother first Scripture stresses the duty of fearing her. In the case of honoring one's parents, however, Scripture mentions the father before the mother because it is manifest to Him that the child honors the mother more than the father because she endeavors to win him over by kindly words. Therefore by mentioning the father first Scripture emphasizes the duty of honoring him (Kiddushin 30b - Kiddushin 31a). ואת שבתתי תשמרו AND MY SABBATHS SHALL YE KEEP — Scripture places the commandment of observing the Sabbath immediately after that of fearing one’s father in order to suggest the following: “Although I admonish you regarding the fear due to your father, yet if he bids you: "Desecrate the Sabbath", do not listen to him” — and the same is the case with any of the other commandments. This, it is evident, is the meaning since Scripture adds — אני ה' אלהיכם “I am the Lord your God" (the plural) — both you and your father are equally bound to honour Me! Do not therefore obey him if it results in making My words of no effect (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 10; Bava Metzia 32a). — What is implied in the term מורא? That one should not sit in his (the father's) seat, nor speak in his stead (i. e. when he is expected to speak), nor contradict his words. And what is implied in the term כבוד? That the child gives the parents to eat and to drink, provides them with clothes and shoes, leads them into the room and out if they are infirm (Kiddushin 31b).

I have already told you in the passage of "These are the ordinances" [Exodus 21] that each commandment stands on its own; therefore there is something like a literary hinge that connects the verses. The passage of Kedoshim begins with "A man — his mother and his father shall he revere"; and since [Scripture] says that the days of one who honors [his parents] will be lengthened, it follows that the days of one who dishonors them will be shortened — hence it says "you shall revere." The reason the mother is mentioned before the father is that the young child at first recognizes only his mother, and thereafter his father. After that [comes] the Sabbath, because the commandment to observe the Sabbath applies to children, whereas this is not so of the other festivals. And thereafter [the child] comes to recognize his God, who rested on the seventh day; and following that: "Do not turn to the idols." Reverence of parents is known from tradition. It says "a man" once, by way of brevity. And it says "you shall revere" in the plural, because those who witness [a child's conduct] are obligated to teach him and compel him — and the same applies to Sabbath observance. The meaning of "I am Hashem your God": that you should act as I do, for I rested from all labor.

The Torah now begins to explain in detail the commandment to honour father and mother, by writing that everyone is to relate with reverence to his mother and father respectively. These words teach that in addition to providing for aged and economically unstable parents with food, drink and clothing, the children (adults by then) must not look down on their parents who in the meantime have become economically dependent on their children. Our sages spelled this out in Kidushin 31 where they said: “sometimes someone feeds his father the most delicious and expensive dishes while the manner in which he does this contributes to the son’s losing his share in the hereafter, whereas on the other hand, a son could earn his share in the hereafter even by expecting his father to perform physically hard labour.” In the latter case, the son explains to the father lovingly why he cannot offer him luxuries but he treats him with love and concern and listens to his father’s words of advice. Having dealt with the implications of the fifth of the Ten Commandments, the Torah now turns to the fourth of the Ten Commandments, that of Sabbath observance, and writes: ואת שבתותי תשמורו, words which do not only refer to the Sabbath of Creation, but to a variety of “Sabbath” legislations such as the “Sabbath” of the land known as sh’mittah, as well as the Sabbath of “money,” i.e. the demand for the lender to forego repayment of past due debts by the debtor at the end of the sh’mittah year. Al these types of “Sabbath” legislation are testimony to the fact that the Creator Who legislates such laws was the originator of the universe, hence His right to demand such obeisances from His creatures.

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, "Each one of you shall fear his mother and father." The reason the Torah wrote this commandment next to the commandment to be holy is also related to the legislation about forbidden sexual unions. Our sages in Sotah 36 interpret Genesis 49,24: "and his arms were made firm by the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob" as a reference to how his father's image helped save Joseph from the temptation he experienced at the hands of the wife of Potiphar. At the critical moment, when Mrs Potiphar grabbed hold of Joseph's tunic, he saw a vision of his father's face outside the window. This caused him to resist the advances of Mrs Potiphar and to leave the tunic in her hand and flee her presence. According to the Talmud, Joseph's semen escaped via his hands instead of via his male organ, etc. I have heard it said in the name of Kabbalists (Kav Hayashar chapter 2) that the image of one's father's face strengthens the forces of sanctity within his son and helps him resist becoming a victim to temptation involving sexual abominations. The reason the Torah speaks about "his mother and his father you shall fear," at this juncture close to chapter 18 is that anyone in the throes of carnal temptation should summon up the image of his parents before his eyes. He will find that this will help him resist the temptation. We also have a hint here that if someone indulges in forbidden sex he shames the honour of his father. This is why the Torah wrote the commandment to fear mother and father so close to the legislation dealing with fordidden sex. In other words, indulgence in forbidden sex is equivalent to a violation of the commandment to fear one's mother and father. The parents would curse a son who commits such an act because they feel ashamed to have brought such a son into the world. This is also the reason the mother is mentioned here first as she feels the shame more deeply than her husband. Solomon explained this in Proverbs 10,1 when he wrote: "and a foolish son is his mother's sorrow." [The "foolishness" of the son is that he was invaded by a spirit of foolishness else he would not have committed the sin. See commentary of Alshich on that verse, my translation page 179. Ed.] Having appreciated this, we can now understand why the second half of our verse speaks about the need to observe the Sabbath legislation. The Zohar volume 2 page 277 and volume 3 page 301 explains that the seven days of the week were allocated to seven righteous people. [They are identical with the seven "guests" we welcome in our Sukkah, a different one each day. Ed.] According to the Zohar Chadash at the beginning of Parshat Toldot the Sabbath was allocated to Joseph. He represents the mystical dimension of peace. This is the reason we greet each other with the greeting שבת שלום on the Sabbath. It is also the reason that we re-phrase the conclusion of the prayer השכיבנו on Friday nights by adding the words "spread over us the the tabernacle (shelter) of Your peace, e...

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, “everyone is to revere his mother and father.” Whereas in the parallel commandment in the Ten Commandments, the father is mentioned first, here the mother is mentioned first; the reason is that a baby becomes familiar with his mother before it becomes familiar with his father. When it comes to the observance of the laws governing the Sabbath, and how it is to be observed, the father is addressed first as it is he who has to train his young sons in observing it. The essence of Sabbath observance is to imitate G-d the Creator, Who took time out on that day. The commandment to observe the Sabbath as a holy day of rest appears in the Ten Commandments immediately prior to the commandment to honour one’s parents. One of the reasons that the commandment to observe the Sabbath appears before that of obeying one’s parents, is to remind us that when the parents’ orders conflict with G-d’s commandments, the commandment to honour one’s parents by desecrating the Sabbath is automatically overruled. One might at first glance have thought that it was not necessary for the Torah to make this point, as we have a rule that a positive commandment, which generally is considered as overriding a negative commandment, does not do so when the negative commandment had also been expressed as positive commandment, as is the case with the commandment to observe the Sabbath, in the first set of the Ten Commandments. Someone might have interpreted the line of כבד את ה' מהונך, “honour the Lord by using part of your wealth,” (Proverbs 3,9) as imposing limits on the fulfillment of that commandment when compared to honouring one’s parents where no such limiting factor is built in. These arguments are discussed in the Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia, folio 32. This still leaves the possible argument that the commandment to honour high ranking individuals, i.e. political heads etc., has been provided with an escape clause when the Torah wrote in Exodus 22,27: ונשיא בעמך לא תאור, “and do not curse a high ranking political figure amongst your people,” where the prefix letter ב implies that this commandment only applies to such figures as long as they conduct themselves as upstanding citizens of your people. This could have been applied to a father and mother who do not observe the laws of the Torah as not deserving your respect. Our Rabbis therefore limited the need to disregard parents’ commanding their children to disregarding orders to disregard Biblical prohibitions of the Sabbath, but to carry out orders from father or mother of requests which “only” violate Rabbinical restrictions. (This last line does not appear in the handwritten manuscripts of the author.)

A man shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths. Rashi explains that if your father tells you to violate the Sabbath, do not listen to him. But in the section of Vayakhel, Rashi explains that since the observance of the Sabbath is mentioned before the construction of the Tabernacle, it teaches us that the construction of the Tabernacle does not override the Sabbath. Thus, we learn that what is mentioned first overrides what is mentioned later. However, in this case, the verse begins in the singular form a man shall revere his mother and his father and concludes in the plural form you shall revere and you shall observe. In the case of reverence, it is understandable that it refers to both man and woman, as Rashi explains. But regarding the Sabbath, why does it say you shall observe in the plural form? What difference does it make whether it’s a man or a woman? Rather, certainly, you shall observe refers to both the child and the parent, teaching you that both you and your father are obligated to honor Me. And as for why it specified Shabbat more than any other commandment in the Torah, it is because the reason for the commandment to honor one’s father and mother is that it is proper to show respect to those who brought you into existence — is he not your father who created you (Deuteronomy 32:6) and made you? How could you not show respect to the one who brought you into being, for without him you would have no existence at all?And Shabbat demonstrates honor to the Holy One, blessed be He, for it attests to the creation of the world and that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought into existence both you and your father. And if your father tells you to desecrate the Shabbat in order to plant in your heart [the belief] that the world is eternal and not created, so that you will believe that you have no other father besides him, and he says all this to tempt you to nullify the will of your Father in heaven for his sake — do not consent and do not listen to him. For in truth, He is the Father of us all, and you are obligated to nullify your father’s will in the face of His will, because both you and your father are obligated to honor Him. But if your father tells you to commit another transgression, it is obvious that you should not listen to him as long as your crown of faith remains intact and you observe the Shabbat properly and believe in the creation of the world, for we all have one Father. Regarding this, He does not need to command you, except if someone comes to dispute the fundamental principles of faith — about this you need extra encouragement. Therefore, we find in many places that the commandment of Shabbat is placed adjacent to the commandment of honoring father and mother, because Shabbat also demonstrates honor to the First Father of all creation. This adjacency also includes [the concept of] the three partners in [the creation of] a person: father, mother, and the Holy One, blessed be He. And regarding why it precedes with the fear of one’s mother before one’s father, but with honor it precedes the father before the mother, it is because even a man is obligated in the honor of his wife, as our Sages of blessed memory said (Yevamot 62b): “A person should always honor his wife more than himself.” One might think that there is not so much concern if you show disrespect to his honor, since the father is also obligated in honoring your mother. Therefore, it precedes the father [in the commandment of honor] to tell you that his honor should be great upon you like the honor of the mother, even though both of you are obligated in honoring the mother. And regarding fear, the wife needs to have fear of her husband. One might think that fear of her is not so strictly required, therefore it precedes the mother [in the commandment of fear] to tell you that in any case, her fear is required of you.

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, ”everyone is to revere his mother and his father.” Whereas in the Ten Commandments the Torah demands that one honour one’s parents, there the demand to honour one’s father precedes the demand to honour one’s mother. The Torah continues: את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbath days.” Comparison with the Ten Commandments shows that the emphasis was on ”remembering” the Sabbath, not on observing it, i.e. not to violate the restrictions in one’s activities that apply on the Sabbath.

ואת שבתותי תשמורו, just as in the Ten Commandments the command to honour parents appeared next to the commandment to observe the Sabbath, honouring parents is almost on a par with honouring the Creator Himself, the Torah placed these two commandments next to one another here too. This is the plain meaning of the text.

Do not turn after idols and metal idols; do not make them for yourselves. I am Hashem your God.

אל תפנו אל האלילים TURN YE NOT UNTO THE IDOLS — to worship them (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 10). The word אלילים, idols, is connected with “not“ (אל) — it is regarded of “none" import. ואלהי מסכה [NOR MAKE TO YOURSELVES] MOLTEN GODS - In the beginning they may appear as “nought" (אלילים) but if you turn unto them you will in the end make them gods (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 11). The translation therefore is: do not turn unto these “non-entities", so that you may not in the end make them into molten gods for yourselves. לא תעשו לכם implies: do not you make molten gods for others nor let others make such for you. Should you, however, say that לא תעשו לכם implies only “you shall not make them for yourselves" but others may make them for you, then I reply: But Scripture has already stated (Exodus 20:3) “Thou shalt have [no other gods]” — neither your own idol nor one which is the idol of (made by) others (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1 12).

He states, ‘Al tiphnu’ (Turn ye not) unto the idols, the term tiphnu (turn ye) being of the expressions: and if thy heart ‘yiphneh’ (turn away); whose heart ‘poneh’ (turneth away) this day. The verse [here] is thus stating that one’s heart should not turn away to the idols, to believe that there is some benefit in [worshipping] them, or that the events that they foretell will really transpire; rather, they and all their activities should appear to him as things of nought, and vanity, and future events occur only by decree of the Most High. And so also have our Rabbis said: “It is forbidden to look at the statues [of the idols] themselves, because it says, ‘Turn ye not’ unto the idols.” Thus the Rabbis included within this prohibition even looking at the statues, so that one should not allow one’s thoughts to dwell on their matters at all. He states, nor make to yourselves molten gods, thus prohibiting them from the very moment that they are made. Admonitions against idolatry are stated in the Torah in many places. In the Midrash of Vayikra Rabbah the Rabbis mentioned concerning this section [of the Torah the following text]: “Rabbi Levi says: Because the Ten Commandments are included in this section [therefore it was proclaimed to the full assembly]. I am the Eternal thy G-d, and here it is written, I am the Eternal your G-d. Thou shalt have no other gods, and here it is written, nor make to yourselves molten gods. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Eternal thy G-d in vain, and here it is written, And ye shall not swear by My Name falsely. Remember the Sabbath day, and here it is written, and ye shall keep My Sabbaths. Honor thy father and thy mother, and here it is written, Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father. Thou shalt not murder, and here it is written, Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor. Thou shalt not commit adultery, and here it is written, Profane not thy daughter, to make her a harlot. Thou shalt not steal, and here it is written, Ye shall not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness, and here it is written, Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people. Thou shalt not covet, and here it is written, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Thus far is the text of the Midrash.

"Do not turn" — even in the heart, to gaze [upon them]. "The idols" — these are the carved images; they are so called because they are a thing of falsehood, like "you are all physicians of no value [ʾelil]" (Job 13:4). It is also possible that [the word] derives from the root ʾel ["not"], the meaning being "that which has no existence." "And gods of cast metal" — [made] to receive the power of the celestial beings; for there is no need for another god alongside Me — therefore it is written "I am Hashem your God." The plural form "you shall turn" and also "you shall make" [is used] because one who sees [such a thing being done] and does not disclose it is a partner in it.

When the Torah now continues with the second of the Ten Commandments by warning us אל תפנו אל אלילים, the Torah elaborates that it is not only forbidden to make oneself such deities in order to worship them, etc., but that it is equally prohibited to display respect for such deities worshipped by other peoples as their gods. Nothing is to be done which would indicate that one invokes the supposed “power” of such deities to further one’s personal interest and concerns.

אל חפנו אל האלילם "Do not turn to the idols, etc. This verse prohibits idolatrous thoughts. One should not turn one's thoughts in that direction. In order to understand this better remember that when a Jew thinks of idolatry it is as if he regresses, i.e. read אחורים, "backwards," instead of אחרים, "others." On the other hand, when a Jew dwells on the subject of the true G'd, it is as if G'd turns His face towards him. האלילם, the idols. The reason the Torah uses the plural form when speaking of even a single idol is that idolatry represents a belief in a multiplicity of domains in this world, separation of powers. Judaism, however, represents the belief in a single Creator, in a single Supreme Power in this universe. When idols are described as deities, אלוהים, they are automatically described as אלוהים אחרים, other deities, i.e. in the plural. ואלהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, "neither construct for yourselves molten gods;" seeing that the Torah has already prohibited all kinds of idols why did it single out the molten gods as something we must not construct? Besides, why did the Torah have to stress the word לכם, "for yourselves?" Perhaps we can understand this in connection with chapter 18 in Tikkuney Ha-Zohar where we read that if someone performs a good deed G'd's presence will dwell upon him; if, however, he transgresses one of G'd's commandments the שכינה will depart from the respective organ that should have performed a commandment and that organ will become the home of a spirit of defilement, of טומאה. This spirit of טומאה is the "iron curtain" which is a barrier between such a person and his G'd. Isaiah 59,2 spelled it out when he said: "your iniquities have created a barrier between yourselves and your G'd." When the Torah writes ואלהי מסכה, this means "and a god which forms an iron curtain (from the word מסך, curtain) you must not construct for yourselves." If you do, you would separate yourselves from your source of life. G'd adds the words: "I am the Lord your G'd," to remind you Who it is that you sever your connections with if you violate this commandment. The words: "I am the Lord your G'd" may also mean that if we refrain from violating this commandment we qualify for the promise that the Lord is indeed our G'd. Our sages in Chulin 5 phrased this as follows: "Anyone who denies the validity of idolatry is considered as if he had expressed his belief in everything written in the Torah." A moral-ethical dimension of this verse may teach us the lesson spelled out in Megillah 28 in connection with Kings II 3,14 לולי פני יהושפט אני נשא אם אביט עליך, "if I did not (at the same time) behold the face of Jehoshaphat king of Yehudah I would not even look at your face." Elisha explained to Achav that it is forbidden to even look at a confirmed sinner such as he. G'd warns that we must not make ourselves into a molten image so that it will be prohibited to even look at ourselves.

אל תפנו אל האלילים, “do not turn unto idols;” the Torah does not refer to worshipping such idols, but it refers to feasting one’s eyes on the architectural extravagance lavished on their temples, and their esthetic appeal, by admiring them. [This author is reminded of what he has seen, unavoidably, in Thailand, for instance. Ed.] ואלהי מסכה, “and idols of cast metal (do not construct);” although this commandment has already been written in Exodus 22,27, there it was expressed as addressed to an individual, here it is addressed to the people in the plural mode.

אל תפנו אל האלילים “do not turn to the “non-deities.” The verse speaks about disembodied spirits beneath the (domain) of the ten emanations; the reason they are called אלילים is that they do possess certain god-like powers. The reason the word is repeated, i.e. אלילים instead of אלים, is to remind the reader that whatever power is displayed by these disembodied spirits is not an independent power but merely something accorded to them by the Creator. They derive their power from another source. This fact prompted the psalmist to say in Psalms 96,5 כי כל אלוהי העמים אלילים וה' שמים עשה, “all the gods of the peoples are mere idols, but the Lord made the heavens.” The psalmist means that the supremacy of Hashem is clearly evident in that He created the Heaven (the entire universe) single-handedly. ואלהי מסכה, “and molten images, etc.” this refers to images of stars, zodiac signs, etc., which are below the level of these disembodied spirits just mentioned. These molten images are perceived as receiving their power from these stars, etc. The name אלוהי מסכה is appropriate and comparable to what the prophet Isaiah 40,19 described as הפסל נסך חרש, “the molten image is poured by the artisan.” אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G’d.” “I exercise control over all levels of phenomena.” We have a similar thought expressed more unmistakably by Solomon in Kohelet 5,7 where he wrote: “for there is One higher than the high Who watches and there are high ones above them.” The words אל תפנו also include a concept described by David as בידך עתותי, “in Your hand are my times.” (Psalms 31,16). We read in Exodus 3,15 that G’d told Moses concerning hidden meaning in His name, זה שמי לעלם, “normally translated as: ‘this is My name forever.” The fact is that the word forever, לעולם is spelled defective in that verse, the letter ו being missing. This means that G’d has kept something concealed, hidden. Briefly, G’d’s message was that although the believers in the stars and zodiac signs attribute significance to the timing of any action in order to ensure that they will be successful, i.e. under the influence of the horoscope, Jews do not. This is what David had in mind when he spoke about his “fate” being in G’d’s hands, calling his fate עתותי, “what is meant to happen to me at any predetermined point in time.” He expresses his absolute trust in leaving such matters to G’d, not to consulting horoscopes. When G’d concludes our verse by writing אני ה', this is a reminder to the Jewish people that their fate at least is not subject to אלילים, and it would be not only wrong but foolhardy of them to turn to cheap imitations of the real Power in this world. לא תעשו לכם אני ה' אלוקיכם, ”do not construct for yourselves, I am the Lord your G’d.” These words are the conclusion of the three verses 2-3-4. We find a similar ending (signature) in 19,34 which concludes the subject of the treatment of strangers (converts). This type of signature is used again in verse 36 concluding the warning not to use false weights, etc., There are still a few other commandments which are signed by G’d saying: “I am the Lord your G’d.” (verses 10-25-31). The reason underlying these statements is that all the commandments originate with G’d, but that only performance of them testifies to the fact that G’d is the lawgiver. This is what the sages meant when they said that if someone spends his entire time only studying the Torah he is comparable to a person who does not have a personal G’d” (Avodah Zarah 17). Their meaning is very clear. We are to demonstrate the existence of G’d and His law by carrying it out in practice. If we do not leave a corner of our fields for the poor, or if we do not treat the convert as an equal, or if we do not ensure that our weights and measures are fair, how do we testify to the fact that G’d whom we believe in has formulated these laws and that we have accepted them? In order to make this point the Torah keeps repeating the “signature” אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G’d, as if to say: “demonstrate that I am the Lord your G’d”

Do not turn to idols. After warning about the fear of the three who bring one into being [God, father, mother], the Torah comes to exclude idols, as it is written, They say to wood, “You are my father,” and to stone, “You gave birth to me” (Jeremiah 2:27). This tells you that there are no partners in your creation except these three and no more. And adjacent to this is And when you offer a peace offering, because it said do not turn, and unspecified turning refers to the heart, as it is written, And if your heart turns away (Deuteronomy 30:17), Whose heart turns away (Deuteronomy 29:17). For with idolatry the Holy One, blessed be He, combines thought with action, as it is said, In order to seize the house of Israel by their heart (Ezekiel 14:5). And the reason for this is that the essence of idolatry depends on the heart of the believer, and we do not find throughout the Torah that thought invalidates like action except in idolatry and with sacrifices. For if one thought during slaughter to eat it outside its designated time or place, it is an abomination, it shall not be accepted. Therefore, the commandment Do not turn to idols, which speaks of turning in the heart, is adjacent to the commandment And when you offer a peace offering to the Lord, offer it so that it may be acceptable for you. Rashi explains that you should not have invalid thoughts about it. For in the entire Torah, matters of the heart are not considered significant except for these two. And what Rashi explained, “and our Sages interpreted” (Zevachim 47a) from here [we learn] that one who is preoccupied in [acting upon] sacred items invalidates them, as one must have intention when slaughtering [sacrifices]. With this, we can explain the juxtaposition of When you reap the harvest of your land, etc. [to the previous verse], to tell you that there is a commandment that does not require intention, and that is charity, as Rashi explained in Parashat Ki Teitzei (24:19) on the verse When you forget a sheaf in the field, etc. so that the Lord your God may bless you. Rashi explained: “Even though it came to him [the poor person] without intention [on your part].” You can say from now that if a coin fell from one’s hand and a poor person found it and sustained himself with it, behold, he [the owner] is blessed for it. And for this reason it is said To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice (Proverbs 21:3). For sacrifice requires intention, while charity [is effective] even without intention. And regarding what is written “and when you reap” in the plural form, and afterward it says “you shall not completely reap the corner of your field” in the singular form, [this is] to tell you that even at the time of harvest when many are reaping, do not imagine in your mind to say “the poor person can sustain himself from the fields of others even if I do not leave for them gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner.” Therefore Scripture states [in singular form], you shall not completely reap and you shall not gather. The obligation is placed upon each individual, and one cannot exempt oneself through [the actions of] others. And the singular language further hints that charity needs to be given in secret, so that it is not known to any person except for the giver and the receiver. And some say that because the harvesters are many, therefore it says and when you [plural] reap, but nevertheless, the obligation is only upon the owner of the field; therefore it says you [singular] shall not completely reap. This is how the connection of these verses appears in my view. We can further say, regarding the connection between you shall slaughter it for your acceptance [lirtzonchem, which can also be understood as by your will] (Leviticus 19:5) and the verse Do not turn to idols (Leviticus 19:4), that they should not conduct their slaughtering to God in the manner of idol worshippers, who only sacrifice when they receive benefits and attribute those benefits to their idols, as it is written: Therefore he sacrifices to his net and burns incense to his dragnet, for by them his portion is rich and his food plentiful (Habakkuk 1:16). This is not willing sacrificing, but rather from the necessity of having received benefits. However, you shall not do so to the Lord; rather, you shall slaughter it by your will, as if you have no compelling reason forcing you to sacrifice, and you should have no foreign intention but rather intend only to give satisfaction before Him. Any foreign thought is called “outside its time” and “outside its place,” for this is neither its proper place nor time, and it is called “unaware action upon sacred sacrifices” without primarily and essentially focusing on the sacrifice. This matter is clear to those who understand and reasonable to hear.

אל תפנו אל האלילים, “Do not turn to the idols!” The injunction here is addressed to the mind rather than to the hands and feet that carry out the desires of the heart and mind. We are commanded to totally discount any supposed influence so-called deities have on anyone’s fate, future, etc. We must remain firmly convinced that our future depends exclusively on decrees made by the Creator in heaven. ואלוהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, “and molten gods you must not make for yourselves.!” The warning here is that culpability for idolatry does not start at the moment one worships idols, but already when one sets out to construct such an idol with the intent to worship it. In Vayikra Rabbah these verses are all explained as being patterned on the Ten Commandments. The Torah continues:

ואלוהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, “do not make for yourselves a molten deity.” What is the meaning of the word: “for yourselves” in this verse, seeing that we have been forbidden to make such images for gentiles? What G–d means here is: “do not make it for others, neither accept what others have made for you as deities.”

When you slaughter a sacrifice of holy offerings before Hashem, you shall slaughter it so that it may be accepted for you.

'וכי תזבחו וגו AND IF YE SACRIFICE [A SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS UNTO THE LORD, YE SHALL SACRIFICE IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU] — This section is said only for the purpose of teaching us that their (the peace offerings’) slaughtering must not take place except with the intention that they should be eaten within this time (the time prescribed v. 6); for if its purpose were to fix the time for eating them it would be redundant, since it is already said (Leviticus 7:16) “But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a free-will offering [it shall be eaten the same day… and on the morrow” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 1). לרצנכם תזבחהו YE SHALL SACRIFICE IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU — This means, from the very beginning the slaughtering shall be done with the intention to give Me satisfaction (i. e. to sacrifice it in a manner that is satisfactory to Me) so that it shall effect favour for you (לרצנכם). For if you have in connection with it (with the slaughtering) any intention which will invalidate it (the sacrifice) it shall effect no favour for you before Me. לרצנכם thus means as much as apaisement in O. F., — “favourable acceptance”. This is the literal meaning of the verse. Our Rabbis, however, (taking the word in its primary sense of will, “intention”) learned from here as regards one who is handling (מתעסק) a sacrifice (קדשים) (when he does the act of Shechitah without the intention of doing this) that it becomes invalid, because it is required that he should intend to slaughter it (Zevachim 47a; Chullin 13a).

He states, And when ye offer an offering of peace-offerings unto the Eternal etc., for after He prohibited the slaughtering of sacrifices, and all manner of worship to idols and to molten gods, and ordered that all Services be devoted to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton] exclusively, He stated here that when you shall bring an offering to the Eternal, it shall be lirtzonchem [“of your desire”], in order that your worship should be acceptable to Him and that He should be pleased with you, even as a servant reconciles himself to his master by doing all that he commands him to do, the expression [lirtzonchem] being similar to: ‘v’nirtzah’ (and it shall be accepted) for him to make atonement for him; but by the light of Thy countenance, because ‘retzitham’ (Thou wast favorable unto them). And the meaning of the verse is to state that you are not to think that there is any benefit in idol worship, neither are you to do the service of the Glorious Name in order to receive a reward, but only to do His Will, for it is His simple Will that is proper and incumbent upon us [to do]. He states this with reference to the peace-offerings because they are of the lesser degree of holy offerings, which are eaten by the owners themselves [unlike the most holy offerings, such as the sin-offering, which may be eaten only by the priests, the verse thus saying] that the owners are to guard their thoughts, so that the offerings be brought with the proper intention, and this applies all the more so to the most holy offerings. Or it may be that [the verse here mentions peace-offerings] because peace-offerings are the [unique] attribute of Israel, just as our Rabbis have said: “Noachides did not offer peace-offerings.” The student learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand. And our Rabbis have said: “Lirtzonchem [literally: ‘to your intent’] slaughter the offering, meaning that you are to have the intention to slaughter it,” for if he merely “handles” an offering [i.e., if he does the act of slaughtering without the intention of so doing], he invalidates [the offering].

"When you slaughter a peace offering" — this is connected to the verse above, so that they should not slaughter to the demons who are not God, but only to Hashem alone. The plural form "you shall slaughter" reflects that Scripture generally speaks of a group of people joining together for a single sacrifice. The meaning of "of your own free will": that they should bring the sacrifice willingly and not under compulsion.

וכי תזבחו, at this point the Torah explains that when G’d issued the very first of the Ten Commandments with the words: “I am the Lord your G’d, etc.,” (20,2) this meant that the Israelites must accept Him as the exclusive divine power in the universe. They are to do so without reservation, just as they did during the song of thanksgiving for their miraculous salvation after crossing the sea with dry feet, when they sang (Exodus 15,2) זה א-לי ואנוהו, אלוקי אבי וארוממנהו, “this is My G’d and I will enshrine Him, the G’d of my forefather and I will exalt Him.” Not only must the Jewish people accept G’d’s dictates and carry them out, but they must be concerned with preserving His great name and not even in their thoughts do anything which would desecrate this great name of His.

לרצונכם תזבחוהו, “when you slaughter it demonstrate that you are bent of pleasing the Lord.” How does one do this? You do so by not being stingy when choosing the animal to be slaughtered. [Most of which will serve as meat for the person and family offering it. Ed.] Furthermore, there are people who when offering such sacrifices do not do so from the depth of their heart, but do so as to be seen to have done so by their fellow Jews. This too will not result in G-d welcoming such sacrifices as coming from the heart of the donor. An alternate explanation: How must such an offering be presented in order to qualify as man’s generosity vis a vis his Creator?Answer: “do something that is bound to please G-d.” What, for instance? “Consume the parts of the meat of that animal as soon as possible, i.e. within the first 36 hours.” This demonstrates that you love to eat sacrificial meat while it is still fresh. תזבחוהו, “slaughter it.” You must not slaughter two animals in a single procedure, [with a long knife. Ed.]

וכי תזבחו זבח שלמים לה, “When you slaughter a peace-offering to the Lord, etc.” The Torah means that “when you have the need to perform sacrificial service to a higher power, do not sacrifice to these aforementioned disembodied spirits, etc., but address your peace-offerings exclusively to Hashem.” The word לה' includes that such sacrificial offerings should not be motivated by your desire to receive some kind of gift or reward in return. Your motivation must be לרצונכם, to express your innermost desire (to come closer to your G’d). The reason that in this instance the Torah writes the formula תזבחהו instead of תזבחו such as in Leviticus 22,29 when we have similar sounding legislation, is explained by our sages in Chulin 29. The absence of the letter ו in the parallel word in Parshat Emor is to teach us that that when a Priest slaughters a sacrificial animal, the same Priest must not slaughter the next sacrificial animal to be offered; neither must two Priests combine to slaughter one single sacrificial animal. In the case of slaughtering animals which are not sanctified and not intended for the altar but merely for private consumption such restrictions do not apply. This is why the word תזבחהו is spelled with the extra letter ה in our verse. [I do not understand why the author speaks about a missing letter ו, when in our editions of the Torah the difference between the two verses is the letter ה. Ed.] At any rate, the Talmud derives from the spelling here that if one slaughterer severed the heads of two animals at the same time, (i.e. in one stroke) both animals are considered as having been ritually slaughtered.] It is also possible to say, in accordance with a kabbalistic approach, that the addition of the two letters הו in our verse here in the word תזבחהו are a deliberate reminder of the last two letters in the tetragram, i.e. symbolising the two attributes Mercy and Justice. (compare author’s comments on Genesis 46,1). This is why there was a need here to add these two letters. It is similar to the same two letters being written in Exodus 2,6 where the Torah describes the reaction of Pharaoh’s daughter when she saw young Moses in the basket as ותראהו את הילד, instead of ותרא את הילד which is what could have been expected. In that instance our sages commented that the extra letters meant that the princess also saw a manifestation of the Lord’s presence, Shechinah, when she looked at the baby (compare Sotah 12). Seeing that the תודה offering which is the subject of the word תזבחו in Leviticus 22,29 was addressed to only one attribute, i.e. Hashem, there was no reason to append the letter ה in addition.

וכי תזבחו זבח שלמים, “when you set out to slaughter a peace-offering, etc.” After the Torah had forbidden slaughtering and any other aspect of idol worship, it now addresses our desire to offer gifts to the Deity by telling us that the proper address for such offerings if we want it to be welcome, is only the attribute of Hashem. More to the point, contrary to what the naïve human being thinks that such an offering is something the Deity needs or desires, the Torah reminds us that the sole purpose of such a peace-offering is to secure a condition of grace for ourselves; no offering impacts on the Deity in the least, seeing that Hashem is totally self-sufficient. What could man possibly give to the Creator who is the One who has given everything we have to us? The reason why the Torah makes this point in conjunction with the offerings known as שלמים, peace-offerings, is that most of the meat of these animals may be consumed by the owners of the offering rather than by the priests, and it need not be consumed on consecrated grounds but the entire city of Jerusalem is considered holy enough for eating what are known as קדשים קלים, sacrificial meats of a relatively low level of sanctity. Another reason may be that only Israelites are allowed to offer this type of sacrificial offering altogether. Gentiles who are allowed to offer burnt offerings are not allowed to offer peace offerings at all. [On the altar of the Tabernacle or Temple, Ed.] Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why in our chapter the demand to accord reverence for the mother precedes the demand to do the same for one’s father, is that a young child in his early years gets to know the mother intimately whereas it does not establish such a close relationship with its father as yet. The next major focus of a young child is the Sabbath, seeing that it is a duty to train even youngsters in the observance of the Sabbath. The same is not true of the other festivals. Having become familiar with the concept of the Sabbath, the youngster next becomes familiar with the concept of G’d, the Creator, the lawgiver, who rested on the seventh day. Having become familiar with these concepts the youngster is introduced to the need to be in awe of the Creator. The Torah does not repeat the word איש in front of each piece of legislation. It uses the plural mode תיראו when legislating the need to be in awe of parents as well as of the invisible G’d, to remind us that it is every Israelite’s duty to implant such feelings in a fellow Jew; it is not merely the parents’ business to do so. Deviants have to be forced to toe the line when in public. Public desecration of the Sabbath, for instance, is not to be tolerated in a Jewish state or even in exile that is self-governing. The reason why the Torah concludes verse four with the words אני ה' אלוקיכם, is to remind us that the reason why G’d wants us to rest on the Sabbath is because He Himself rested on the first Sabbath and interrupted His creative activities on account of the sanctity of that day. Still quoting Ibn Ezra, the reason for the words אל תפנו אל אלילים, “[something that sounds like a repetition of previous legislation on the subject, Ed.] is that we must not even briefly look at such displays of pagan deities. The reason the Torah repeats the injunction of אלוהי מסכה לא תעשה לך, not to make yourself a molten image, is simply to reassure you that you have no need for any additional celestial assist. By saying אני ה' אלוקיכם, Hashem tells us that He, and only He, will look after our needs. The reason that the Torah writes (verse 9) that we must not completely harvest every last stalk of our fields, immediately after speaking about the peace-offerings, is to draw a comparison between gifts we offer to Hashem such as the fat parts of the peace-offerings, and the gifts we leave for the poor. Giving to the poor is another way of honouring Hashem, who has also made the poor. After having dealt with the need to voluntarily leave gifts for the poor and the stranger (proselyte) who has not yet established an economic base for himself, the Torah enjoins us not to steal, as a corollary of voluntarily giving to the poor. If we even share with the poor what we are in the habit as considering as ours, how much less may we deprive anyone of what is rightfully his by stealing from him? The Torah phrases this legislation also in the plural mode to teach that anyone observing someone stealing and not protesting is as if he had aided and abetted the thief. The Torah continues by warning us not to lie actively or passively, nor to keep silent when we know that someone else lies or cheats. (Verse 12) The injunction not to swear a false oath, i.e. involving G’d Himself in one’s sin by using His name in vain when denying one’s transgression, is added as a warning that sinning leads to denying the sin, which in turn results in desecrating the name of the Lord publicly, one of the most serious sins possible. Here too, the plural mode is used to involve the party demanding that the second one confirm his claims by swearing in the name of Hashem.

לרצונכם, by ensuring the animal is unblemished and the procedure of semichah, placing one’s weight on it with one’s hands has been performed, as well as all the other details which have been spelled out in Leviticus 3,6.

On the day it is slaughtered it shall be eaten, and on the day after; but what remains until the third day shall be burned in fire.

ביום זבחכם יאכל ON THE DAY YE SACRIFICE IT [SHALL IT BE EATEN] — This means, when ye slaughter it (וכי תזבחו) slaughter it (תשחטהו =תזבחהו) having in mind the period which I have already fixed for you as that within which it must be eaten (that which is mentioned already Leviticus 7:16).

ביום זבחכם יאכל, “on the day (and the morrow of the day) you slaughter it must be eaten.” The preferred method is to eat the meat of the offering on the actual day the animal has been slaughtered. On the second day it is permitted to eat it still, but it is not the Torah’s choice that the eating be spread over two days or not be commenced until the day after the slaughter. When the Talmud in Zevachim 55 speaks of peace-offerings being permitted to be eaten on two days and one night, this means the day of the slaughter, the night following, and the following day. On the night following the second day the offering is already in the category of נותר, “left over,” and must not be eaten anymore, the remains to be burned. This is the meaning of the words: “and what remains of it on the third day must be burned by fire.” These words simply mean that the burning has to take place on the third day, not the eating.

And if it is eaten on the third day, it is rejected; it shall not be accepted.

ואם האכל 'יאכל וגו AND IF IT SHOULD BE EATEN AT ALL [ON THE THIRD DAY] etc. — If it (this verse) has no bearing on a sacrifice at the slaughtering of which there was the intention to eat its flesh beyond its (the prescribed) time, since it has already been stated, (Leviticus 7:18) “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice is to be eaten (i. e. is intended to be eaten) at all [on the third day, it shall not be accepted]" — then give it an application to a sacrifice at the slaughtering of which there was the intention of eating its flesh outside the prescribed place (e. g. in the case of a festival offering — outside the walls of Jerusalem) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 4). One might think that people are liable to excision for the eating of it (of such a sacrifice), Scripture therefore states in the case of the former (the חוץ לזמנו sacrifice) (Leviticus 7:18) “And the soul that eateth of it (ממנו) shall bear its iniquity"; i. e. the soul that eateth of it, but not of the one similar to it (the חוץ למקומו sacrifice) shall bear its iniquity. This excludes therefore from the penalty of excision the case of a sacrifice which has been slaughtered with the intention that it should be eaten outside the prescribed place (Zevachim 28a). פגול means abominable; similar is (Isaiah 65:4) "and broth of abominable things (פגולים) is in their vessels".

ואם האכל יאכל, according to our sages (Torat Kohanim 1,4) this refers to someone planning to eat the remains outside the sacred precincts allocated for this.

And whoever eats it shall bear his guilt, for he has profaned what is holy to Hashem; that person shall be cut off from his people.

ואכליו עונו ישא THEREFORE EVERYONE THAT EATETH IT SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — Scripture is speaking here of flesh actually left unburnt on the third day (so that this verse must be connected with v. 6, and not with v. 7) since one is not liable to excision for eating that which was slaughtered with the intention to eat its flesh outside the prescribed place (of which v. 7 is speaking), because Scripture has already excluded such a case from the penalty of excision (cf. Rashi v. 7). This verse must therefore be speaking of actual נותר. In Treatise Keritot 5a they (our Rabbis) derived it (the fact that v. 8 refers back to נותר in 5:6) from a verbal analogy.

"Its eaters" — each individual among those who eat of it; similarly [the plural is used for the individual in] "the righteous man is confident as a lion" (Proverbs 28:1). "For the sacred property of Hashem he has desecrated" — since the choice parts [eimurim] have already been offered to the Most High, all the [remaining] meat is sacred. "Desecrated" [ḥillel] derives from the root ḥol ["ordinary/profane"], meaning it has no sanctity — it is as though a slain thing [ḥalal]. This passage states the punishment for the transgression: "that soul shall be cut off."

ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה and this person (soul) will be cut off from its people. We must explore the reason why the penalty for a priest who eats sacrificial meat after the time the Torah allocated for it is so severe. Why is this sin worse than eating all kinds of animals which were not allowed to be consumed at any time, such as creeping things, certain kinds of grasshoppers, or even mammals which died of natural causes or were found to be diseased? You should know that the reason is connected to what we learned in Baba Metzia 114 that the corpse of an Israelite confers ritual impurity on people under the same roof, whereas the corpse of a pagan does not. In other words, the bodies of Israelites are of a higher level of sanctity (while alive) than are the bodies of pagans. Once the sanctity departs from the body of the Jew when he dies, this is replaced by all kinds of spiritually negative phenomena. This accounts for the fact that the difference between a live Jew and a dead Jew is far greater than the difference between a live pagan and a dead pagan. No sanctity departed from the pagan when he died, hence no additional קליפות, spiritually negative forces, will invade that body. The same principle operates in connection with the legislation in our verse. The parts of the animal offered on the altar have enjoyed a higher status than any other animal dead or alive, seeing the remains of this animal have been considered fit to be offered up in holy precincts, an area that most Israelites are not allowed to enter either dead or alive. As soon as the time allocated for these parts to be eaten has elapsed the animal forfeits all the holiness it possessed and this is replaced in turn by spiritually negative forces, just as in the case of the body of a Jew who has died. These forces of טומאה which have now invaded the remains of that animal cause the premature death, etc. of the priest who will eat these parts belatedly. None of the other animals which the Torah has outlawed for consumption by Jews had ever been imbued with any sanctity so that this could have been replaced upon its death by spiritually negative forces which would represent mortal danger to a Jew eating such an animal. Any negative influences a Jew absorbs when he eats these forbidden animals can be expunged by the sinner receiving corporal punishment, מלקות. The reason the Torah gives for the harsh penalty "that he (the priest) has defiled something that is sacred," appears to mean that the Torah is concerned with the status of the remains of the animal; according to our approach, however, it seems to indicate that G'd is very concerned with the sacred status of the priest. The Torah does not want the priest to jeopardise his status. Possibly, the fact that peace-offerings are not complete until the priests had consumed their portions, is the reason why the Torah had to be very blunt in outlawing eating any of that sacrificial meat after the deadline, even if, as a result of the pri...

כי את קודש ה, “for he defiled something that had been sacred to the Lord.” Once the parts that were destined for the altar have been presented the remainder of the meat is of a holy character. (Ibn Ezra)

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not complete the corner of your field in reaping, and the gleanings of your harvest you shall not gather.

לא תכלה פאת שדך THOU SHALT NOT WHOLLY REAP THE CORNER OF THY FIELD — This means that one must leave פאה (an uncut portion) at the extremity of one's field (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 1 9; Mishna Peah 1:2; Shabbat 23a). ולקט קצירך [NEITHER SHALT THOU COLLECT] THE GLEANINGS OF THY HARVEST — Gleanings are ears that drop from the hand of the harvester during the reaping — one or two at a time, but three do not come under the category of לקט (Mishna Peah 6:5; Sanhedrin 99a).

The meaning of "when you reap": just as after the peace offering you gave to the Most High the choice parts, so too from the harvest of your land you shall give, in honor of Hashem, to the poor and to the stranger. The grammatical form of "be-qotsrekhem" ["when you reap"] is unusual — it is an infinitive form from the simple conjugation [qal]. "The corner of your field" — he shall leave a corner in the field. "Gleaning" — its meaning is well known.

ובקצרכם...לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם, The Torah now turns to how we can emulate G’d’s attributes in [practice after having accepted that it is our purpose on earth to emulate G’d’s characteristics to the extent that He has revealed them to us. We are to perform acts of charity and righteousness. Part of such acts of charity are the providing for the underprivileged out of the bounty G’d has seen fit to grant us. The specific items known as leket, shikchah, and peyah are examples of such demonstrations of our generosity towards the poor. אני ה' אלוקיכם, this recognition of G’d as our G’d is demonstrated by our meticulously fulfilling these commandments relating to the time when we gather in our harvest. Before we even give tithes of the completed harvest which has been brought into the barn we already allow for the poor to help themselves to what other, gentile farmers, might consider the product of their own hard earned labour.

ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם, "And when you reap the harvest of your land, etc." The Torah commenced this verse by speaking in the plural, whereas it concluded by addressing an individual i.e. לא תכלה פאת שדך, "you (sing.) must not reap the corner of your field." The Torah may have wanted to dispel the faulty notion that when the amount of gleanings, etc. does not amount to anywhere near enough to provide something meaningful for the poor that the law does not apply. We find an example of such thinking in Kings II 4,43 where Gechazi, Elisha's servant, questioned the use of sharing out twenty loaves amongst over one hundred of Elisha's followers. The Torah therefore addresses each farmer individually to tell him that even though his individual contribution is minimal he must abide by this legislation. The Torah uses the singular for each one of the types of gifts for the poor listed in our verse. The Torah may have felt forced to write this positive commandment immediately following mention of the severe כרת penalty for the priest who violates the perimeters of eating sacrificial meat. It wanted to disabuse a person who has become guilty of such a penalty from saying to himself that there is no point in observing any of G'd's commandments because he had already forfeited his share of the hereafter by violating a different commandment. The Torah says: "when you reap the harvest of your fields;" this is a reference to the people (i.e. the nation at large) who had "harvested" i.e. cut themselves off by commission of a sin which made them subject to extinction. G'd directs: "do not destroy the corner of your field to harvest it;" this is a warning to the people or individuals not to become guilty of additional misdemeanours. He advises us that not the whole soul will be destroyed. The only part of the personality (soul) which will be destroyed is the branch to which this particular commandment had been addressed in the first place. Other parts of that soul continue to maintain their affinity with their holy origin. Every Jewish soul has roots in the celestial regions, one root corresponding to each of the commandments in the Torah. The Torah continues: ולקט קצירך לא תלקט, "do not gather the gleanings of your harvest." This is a reminder not even to repeat the specific sin for which one has already once become guilty of the כרת penalty. The rationale for this can best be understood in light of a comment by the Ari Zal. He said that it is in the nature of sanctity to leave behind some mark even if its bulk has been erased. If this is so, it follows that although the sinner has "harvested," i.e. put an end to his spiritual career by his sin, there is still a residue of the former sanctity he has forfeited by his deed. The Torah commanded such a sinner to be careful not to commit an act which would wipe out even that residue by repeating his sin, i.e. לקט. It is G'd's hope and desire that this לקט, residue of former sanctity, should prompt the sinner to becom...

ובקוצרכם, ”and when you reap the harvest;” just as you tender the appropriate parts of the animal peace offerings to the Lord on the altar, so you must set aside the appropriate parts of your agricultural products for the needy of your people as an expression of your honour of the Lord. (Sifra) ובקוצרכם, “this law is applicable only to Israelites, i.e. those who have been Jewish when they reaped the harvest, not if they converted after they have harvested the crop. (Sifra) את קציר ארצכם, “the harvest of the field of your land.” This teaches that the legislation following also applies to kitniyot, to corn, lentils, rice, beans peas, etc.; not only to the crops that could become chametz on Passover. לא תכלה פאת שדך, “do not completely reap the corner of your field;” Rabbi Shimon holds that as long as the farmer set aside some grain during the various stages of reaping he had fulfilled his obligation, as long as the total is not less than 1/60th of the field’s total yield. לקצור, “to reap,” this 60th is to include all manner of plucking, cutting by hand, or with the tools designated for harvesting. (Sifra)

ובקצרכם, “When you reap the harvest, etc.” The reason the word ובקצרכם is in the plural is because the portion commenced with Israel being addressed in the plural, i.e. as the community. Moreover, it was the custom in those days that many people began the harvesting process simultaneously. By contrast the words לא תכלה, “do not completely harvest the corner, etc.” are in the singular seeing the warning is addressed to the individual owner of the field in question. We find that the Torah uses the singular in other parallel legislation where the onus is on the individual owner (compare verse 10). Our sages in Chulin 135 comment that seeing the Torah spoke about שדך, “the field belonging to you the individual,” I might have thought that fields owned jointly by two or more partners could escape the application of this legislation. To ensure that we do not draw such conclusions the Torah employs the plural in our verse here, speaking about a number of people harvesting.

And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the resident aliens. I am Hashem your God.

לא תעולל AND THOU SHALT NOT GLEAN [THY VINE YARD] — (עלל is a verb connected with the noun עולל "young, tender, not developed"; cf. Samuel 15:3: עולל ויונק) thus לא תעולל means, thou shalt not take the tender grapes of it. They can be recognized as such from the description given in Mishna Peah 7:4 (cf. also Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 3 3) where it is stated: What are עוללות? Clusters which have neither כתף, “arms" nor נטף, "drippings". ופרט כרמך [NEITHER SHALT THOU COLLECT] THE FALLEN GRAPES OF THY VINE YARD — i. e. the single berries of the grapes which fall to the ground during the grape gathering. אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — the Judge Who am certain to punish if necessary and Who for the neglect of these duties will exact from you nothing less than your souls, as it is said (Proverbs 22:22, 23) "Rob not the poor… for the Lord will plead their cause, [and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them]" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 3 7).

"You shall not strip" [teʿolel] — you shall not take the small clusters; these are called ʿolelot ["gleanings"], the small ones, similarly called "sucklings" [yoneqot]. This verb form is like "and your root from the living land" — meaning, [the one who] cuts off the root (Isaiah 14:30) — and similarly "he shall cut the branch from the branch" (Isaiah 10:33). "Pereth" — its meaning is known from tradition, from the root meaning "those who strum" [ha-poretim] to the sound of the lute (Amos 6:5). "To the poor" — [the Israelite] poor. "And to the stranger" — the stranger who lives among you.

וכרמך לא תעולל, “and your vineyard you must not pick undeveloped fruit.” The Torah means that when you come across unripe single grapes during the process of harvesting the vineyard you must leave those for the stranger, the poor, etc. The reason these single unripe grapes are known as עוללות, a word usually describing babies, is that these grapes are to regular clusters of grapes as these babies in relation to fully grown men. They must be left as gleanings for the poor. ופרט כרמך, “and the fallen fruit of your vineyard you shall not gather.” The individual ripe grapes which for one reason or another fall off the clusters are called פרט. Individual ears of corn are also known by that name once they have been separated from the stalk. Compare Yoel 1,17 עבשו פרדות תחת מגרפותיהם, “the seeds have shriveled under their clods.” When the prophet predicts desolation due to crop failure both of grain and fruit trees, he refers to the immediate cause being the shriveling up of these individual ears of corn used as seed. The word עבשו is similar to the word עפשו, “turned moldy.” The word מגרפותיהם used by the prophet is derived from אגרף, “fist.” The prophet uses the comparison between the whole, the combined and the separate, the individual. He describes the whole stalk full of ears as similar to a “fistful,” whereas the individual ears of corn he describes as having shriveled, עבשו. The word פרט is always found in Talmudic Hebrew as the contrast to the כלל, the community, the all-inclusive rule, for instance. In Megillah 26 the Talmud speaks of האי תיבותא דארפט, “a holy ark in the Synagogue which is disintegrating,” and from the usable parts of which it is permitted to make a similar smaller ark, although not something to hold secular books or scrolls. The letters רט in the word in the Talmud, though inverted, do not change the meaning of the word, i.e. that it fell apart into its components which were previously held together. In connection with defining the word פרט more closely, our sages (Peyah 6,8) stated that if one or two grapes fell off a cluster the definition פרט applies, whereas if three or more grapes fell off together this definition does not longer apply and the grower may retrieve them. The same definition applies to individual stalks of corn as opposed to sheaves.

לא תעולל, meaning something akin to the concept of peyah in cornfields, i.e. the farmer must not harvest the entire vineyard for his own use. The parallel verse appears in Jeremiah 6,9 עולל יעוללו כגפן, “let them glean over and over, as a vine.”

You shall not steal, and you shall not speak falsely, and you shall not deal deceitfully one with another.

לא תגנבו YE SHALL NOT STEAL — This is a warning addressed to him who steals money (the property of his fellow-man), but the law “Thou shalt not steal" which is contained in the Ten Commandments is a warning addressed to him who steals a human being. For this it what is learnt from the context, because it must be a matter for which one becomes liable to death by sentence of the court, (since the preceding laws in the Ten Commandments are of this character, which is the case with kidnapping and not with theft of money; cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:14) (Mekhilta 20:13:3; Sanhedrin 86a). ולא תכחשו NEITHER SHALL YE DEAL FALSELY [WITH ONE ANOTHER] — Since Scripture has stated (Leviticus 5:21, 22) "[If a man sin… and deny unto his neighbour a charge, or a deposit… or has found that which was lost] and denieth it (וכחש בה)", that he shall pay the principal and add a fifth part more thereto, we have there mention only of the punishment he incurs; whence do we derive the prohibition (i.e. where is it forbidden)? From Scripture's statement here “neither shall ye deal falsely" (The Hebrew here is תכחשו, the same term as is used in the verse quoted — וכחש בה) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 3; Bava Kamma 105b). ולא תשקרו NEITHER SHALL YE LIE [ONE TO ANOTHER] — Since Scripture has stated (V. 22) “[If a soul sin… and deny unto his neighbour a charge or a deposit…] and sweareth falsely (לשקר)" that he shall pay the principal and shall add the fifth part more thereto, we have there mention only of the punishment he incurs; whence do we derive the prohibition to lie? From Scripture's statement here “ye shall not lie one to another”. לא תגנבו ולא תכחשו ולא תשקרו ולא תשבעו YE SHALL NOT STEAL, NEITHER DEAL FALSELY, NEITHER LIE, NEITHER SWEAR [ONE TO ANOTHER] - If you steal you will in the end come to deny it, then you will lie (in order to back up your first denial), and ultimately you will swear falsely (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 5).

The meaning of "you shall not steal": [this follows] in sequence, for [the sense is]: since I have commanded you to give from your own to the poor in honor of Hashem, how much more so must you not take what belongs to others. The meaning of [the plural] "you shall steal" — because one who sees [the theft] and remains silent is himself a thief. "You shall not deny" — [this refers to] a deposit entrusted to you; and one who knows [the truth] and does not testify is also one who denies. "You shall not lie" — [this refers to] one who seeks money from someone who owes him nothing at all.

After this the Torah explains various aspects of civil law some of which are addressed to the people at large, whereas others are addressed to the judiciary and the manner in which they deal with the people. Others again are addressed to the heads of the nation. Still others emphasise that individuals must not infringe on others’ property, hence לא תגנובו לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, all damages involving financial property.

לא תגנבו, "Do not steal, etc." What is the reason the Torah chose to write this commandment next to that of leaving your gleanings for the poor? Perhaps Torat Kohanim provides the clue. They quote Ben Bag Bag who said: "do not steal your own property back from the thief lest you will be perceived as a thief" (i.e. by those who do not know that what you took was yours in the first place). Thus far Torat Kohanim. Here the Torah warns the farmer that if he collects the gleanings of his own harvest he should not rationalise this by saying that he is only taking what belongs to him anyway. Our verse actually contains three prohibitions. 1) "Do not steal!" i.e. to not take someone else's money without that person being aware of it. 2) "Do not deal falsely!" i.e. do not deny that you have in your possession money belonging to your fellow man though you obtained this money legally. 3) "Do not lie!" i.e. do not deny that you have money of your fellow man in your possession and there are witnesses who testify to this. The Torah tells us that even in a case such as this where the claim of the thief is easily disproved and the money will be restored to its rightful owner, the thief is guilty of having lied. The Torah also hints here that in the event a person violates the first of these three commandments and steals, G'd will see to it that the theft becomes known. Our sages in Chagigah 16 have stated that if someone commits a sin in secret G'd will make the sin public so that the sinner's wickedness will be exposed. This is why the Torah writes the prohibition to deny one's guilt immediately after writing the prohibition to steal. When the Torah wrote לא תכחשו, "do not falsely deny your guilt," it speaks of a situation where the culprit would be able to get away with his denial legally such as when he is confronted by only one witness; if the thief confesses, all well and good; if he denies the accusation, the Seer, i.e. G'd Himself, will act as the second witness against the guilty person; needless to say that in that event the culprit will not be able to get away with his lie; the Torah adds: "do not lie!" to teach that in addition to the culprit's denial having proven useless to him he will also have become guilty of the sin of lying. The reason the Torah employs the plural here and in subsequent verses as opposed to the first ten verses in this chapter and the commandments starting with verse 16 may be to warn the victim of the thief not to take the law into his own hands and retrieve what has been stolen from him in that fashion. The words לא תגנובו therefore are addressed to both the original thief as well as the victim who resorts to stealing to retrieve his own property. The result of taking the law into your own hands would likely result in both of you becoming guilty of violating the related commandments לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו. As to the reason why also verse 12 is in the plural, I believe the reason is identical. If someone observes that the thie...

לא תגנובו, “do not steal;” here too the Torah repeated by using the plural mode what had already been part of the commandment not to steal in the Ten Commandments, when it was phrased as if only addressed to an individual. The Torah implies that if someone observes theft and is silent, he is no better than the thief himself. (Ibn Ezra) Now that we have read the warning not to steal, whence do we know the penalty for violating this commandment? It says שנים ישלם: “he has to repay twice the value.” (Exodus 22,3.) The commandment not to steal, in the Ten Commandments, dealt with stealing human beings, kidnapping. לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, “do not deal falsely nor lie to one another.” The prohibition is spelled out here; where do we have the penalty for violating this commandment? According to the (Sifra) we find it in Leviticus 5,22 in the words: וכחש בה וחמשיתו יוסף עליו, “if he denies it he will have to add a fifth of its value when making good.”After G-d had commanded us to give some of what we own to Him, he also warns us not to deprive our fellowman of what is rightfully his. (Ibn Ezra, worded slightly differently)

לא תגנובו , “you shall not steal!” At this point the Torah reverts to using the plural seeing that a similar commandment in the Ten Commandments had been addressed to the individual, i.e. לא תגנוב. The Torah did not want us to think that the commandment here was merely a repetition of what has already been written in the Decalogue. In the Decalogue the Torah speaks of someone stealing somebody for which the penalty is execution, whereas here the Torah speaks about objects or even animals for which financial compensation with or without a penalty is in place. The reason we know that in the Decalogue we speak about a different category of theft, i.e. kidnapping, is that the other commandments there i.e. “do not commit adultery, and do not murder,” are also sins punishable by execution of the person violating them deliberately. Here the Torah speaks of stealing money, or the equivalent of money, something that can be expiated by means of payments to the party concerned. We were told in Baba Metzia 61 that the wording לא תגנובו implies that stealing is prohibited even if one committed the theft only in order to annoy the person from whom one stole without the intention of keeping the stolen money. The reason the sages in Baba Metzia had to come up with this explanation is that seeing the Torah already wrote לא תגזול, “do not commit robbery,” and everyone who steals is automatically guilty of violating the commandment not to commit robbery, the words לא תגנובו had to contain an additional dimension. לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו, ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, “do not deny falsely, do not lie, and do not use My name to swear a false oath.” The Torah, with its infinite psychological insight, describes a sequence of events. One starts by stealing, then denies that one has stolen, then denies it on oath. In the end one is guilty of desecrating the Lord’s name (when others hear about it). The Torah speaks particularly of invoking the tetragram in any oath. “Desecrating the name of the Lord your G’d,” means desecrating the One name from which all the attributes, כנוים, are derived. The first time this injunction appears was in the Ten Commandments where the Torah also mentioned שם ה' אלוקיך, “the name of the Lord your G’d” (Exodus 20,7). At the time the Torah had added that the sin of desecrating His name by using it in a false oath was so severe that He would never completely forgive such a person for that sin.

“You shall not steal,” etc. The verse speaks of stealing money, as it says, and you shall not swear falsely by My name, implying that if you steal, you will eventually deny it, and if you deny it, you will eventually swear falsely. Since one does not take an oath regarding denial of land or slaves, this must refer to stealing money. Therefore, the plural form you shall not steal is used to warn also the person who divides the spoils with the thief, for he too hates his own soul. For typically, money can be divided, but in the case of kidnapping, there is usually not enough to divide; even though a person is sellable, perhaps buyers will not be found. Thus, generally two people do not partner in actual kidnapping, which is why the singular form is used You shall not steal (Exodus 20:13). Similarly, You shall not oppress refers to one who hires a worker, and typically two employers do not hire one worker in partnership, therefore it says You shall not oppress in the singular form. And regarding what is written, You shall not oppress your fellow and You shall not rob, while for theft it does not mention “your fellow,” this is because every thief also steals from the Divine consciousness and acts as if the Eye Above does not see, as it were [robbing being in the open whereas theft is secretive]. If so, he is not stealing only from his fellow, whereas the robber oppresses only his fellow.

לא תגנובו, money. לא תכחשו, denial that one had received a deposit for safekeeping from another Jew. Compare Leviticus 5,22. לא תשקרו, denying that one had received a loan.

And you shall not swear by My Name falsely, so as to profane the Name of your God. I am Hashem.

ולא תשבעו בשמי AND YE SHALL NOT SWEAR BY MY NAME [TO A LIE] - Why is this stated at all (how does the particular form of words used here tell us more than is contained in the Third Commandment)? Since it is said (Exodus 20:7) “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord ('ה) thy God in vain”, I might have inferred that one is not liable except he swore by the "Proper Name” of the Lord (שם המיוחד). Whence do I know that all names that are descriptive of God's attributes (Adonay, Rachum, Chanun etc.) are included in this prohibition? Because Scripture states “ye shall not swear by My Name to a lie", thus implying by any Name I have (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 6).

AND YE SHALL NOT SWEAR BY MY NAME FALSELY. “Why is this stated [when it has already been mentioned in the Ten Commandments]? Since it is said, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Eternal thy G-d in vain, I might think that one is liable only if he swore by the Proper Name of G-d. Whence do I know to include all ‘substitute’ Names of G-d [such as Merciful, etc.]? Scripture therefore says, And ye shall not swear ‘bishmi’ (by My Name) falsely — by any Name I have.” This is Rashi’s language from the Torath Kohanim. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], And ye shall not swear by My Name refers to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. And thereby thou wilt profane the Name of thy G-d refers to the Name Elokim (G-d), from which Name all other “substitute” Names of G-d are derived. And there [in the Ten Commandments] it says at first the Name of the Eternal thy G-d, and similarly, the Eternal will not hold him guiltless, meaning, by His Great Proper Name. And this is the meaning of the expression [here in the verse before us], and thou wilt profane, meaning that he who swears falsely by the Proper Name, will thereby be profaning the Name of Elokim [as all Divine Names are united in perfect Unity].

The meaning of "you shall not swear by My name falsely" [follows] after "you shall not steal," for one who is suspected of theft or [misappropriating] a deposit takes an oath. The meaning of [the plural] "you shall swear" — to include the one who administers the oath. The meaning of "you will have desecrated [it]" — that one who swears falsely denies [the existence of] the Name, as I have explained.

לא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, revolves around felonious attempts to deny financial obligations one has entered into. וחללת את שם אלוקיך, by causing financial damage to your fellow man you would desecrate the holy name of the Lord your G’d.

ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, “and do not abuse My name to swear a false oath;” the reason why this prohibition appears at the end of this string is that when someone is suspected and accused of having lied, stolen, etc., it is likely that in defending himself against the accusation he will add the additional sin of swearing his innocence when knowing that this is not so. All three of these prohibitions, though already written once in singular mode, have been repeated so as not to give a group of people an excuse to commit same by claiming that each one of them had only had a miniscule share in participating in that sin. וחללת את שם אלוקיך, “and by so doing you have desecrated the name of your G-d.” Swearing a false oath is proof that one does not consider G-d’s name as being sacred, or even worse, that he does not know what is in your heart. (Ibn Ezra)

ולא תשבעו, even when this does not entail denying financial obligations one wants to escape.

You shall not exploit your neighbor, and you shall not rob. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you overnight until morning.

לא תעשק THOU SHALT NOT WRONG [THY FELLOW-MAN] — This refers to one who withholds the wages of a hired servant (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 9; Bava Metzia 61a). לא תלין The word תלין is feminine gender and refers to the wages. עד בקר UNTIL THE MORNING — Scripture speaks here of a person hired for day-work (שכיר יום) whose departure from work is at sunset. The time for drawing his wages is therefore the whole night (and the law is not infringed provided he pays it before the moment of day break). In another passage (Deuteronomy 24:14) it states, "the sun shall not go down upon it (the man's wages)”. There, however, it is speaking of one hired for night-work (שכיר לילה) the end of whose period of work is at day break, therefore the time for drawing his wages is the whole day (but it must be done before sunset). The reason why he has the whole night or whole day to pay the wages is because the Torah gives the employer the time of one "Ona" (one half of the astronomical day; cf. for the meaning of the word Niddah 65b) to endeavour to obtain the money he requires for paying the wages (Bava Metzia 110b).

"You shall not oppress your fellow" — in secret. "And you shall not rob" — openly, by force. "Peʿulah" ["wages earned"] — like "wages" [sekhirut]; similarly, "and his reward [ufeʿulato] is before him" (Isaiah 40:10). It is possible that this is expressed by way of brevity, and the meaning is: the wages of his labor. Many have explained it as referring to a day laborer, where someone says to him, "Work again tomorrow morning and in the morning I will pay you the wages of two days." The translators [Targum] say it refers to a day laborer, because for a night laborer the sun does not come upon it [i.e., the wages].

לא תעשוק את דעך, "Do not oppress your fellow Jew." After the Torah had forbidden the acquisition of someone else's money through theft a person might conclude that the Torah's objection is only to thievery and not to other ways of appropriating something which is rightfully someone else's. This is why the Torah had to outlaw the obtaining of money by someone exploiting his position of strength vis-a-vis a person whose social or financial position places him at a disadvantage. The prohibition includes withholding wages of a labourer even only for one night. The reason the Torah describes the injured party as רע, a colleague or friend, is to warn us not to presume on the other party's friendship towards us to shortchange them in what is due to them. One must not play loose with a friend's money because he is one's friend and presumably will not voice his objection for the sake of preserving the friendship. The word את רעך is justified seeing the subject is one which involves only people, not G'd directly. Moreover, if the friend forgives the harm done to him such behaviour is not considered a sin vis-a-vis G'd. A moral-ethical dimension of these verses is found in Berachot 35 where the Talmud discusses Proverbs 28,24: "he who robs father or mother saying it is no sin is a companion of a destroyer." The Talmud views the verse as referring to someone enjoying the products of this world without first reciting a benediction acknowledging that it all belongs to G'd. Father and mother in that verse are supposed to be G'd and the concept of the people of Israel, commonly referred to as כנסת ישראל. The word רעך in our verse would refer to G'd Himself. We are entitled to this homiletical approach based on Proverbs 27,10 where Solomon warns not to abandon "your friend and the friend of your father." This means one should not "rob" G'd of what He provides without first acknowledging it, taking permission, so to speak. The reason the Torah adds the words "do not rob," is to tell you that even the paucity of מצוה-performance contains an element of robbery. When one fails to carry out a commandment which one is obligated to observe and has the opportunity to observe one causes harm to the entire Jewish people, i.e. one is guilty of transgressing the commandment לא תלין, not performing one's duty on time. When the Torah writes: "do not keep overnight with you the wages due to a labourer," this is a demand to perform daily and punctually in one's מצוה-performance. Vayikra Rabbah 26,4 describes the practice of day borrowing from night during the summer months, whereas night borrows from day during the winter months. [ideally, both day and night should be 12 hours long all year long were it not for the fact that the earth's axis is (nowadays, since the deluge) at an angle. Ed.] The Midrash presents this as an ideal way of two parties helping each other out without recourse to written contracts, demands for repayment, etc. When the Torah writes לא תלין פעולת שכיר ...

פעולת שכיר, “the wages of a day labourer;” this expression in the same sense occurs also in Job 34,11, כי פועל אדם ישלם לו, “for He pays a man according to his actions.” פעולת שכר, “this includes any type of compensation, for human beings, vessels borrowed, animals borrowed and land borrowed or rented. (Sifra)

לא תעשוק, withholding wages and suppressing just claims by converts. לא תגזול, similar to Samuel II 23,21 ויגזול את החנית מידו, “he wrenched the spear out of his hand.” לא תלין, withholding wages from night workers.

לא תלין פעולת שכיר, “do not withhold the wages of a day labourer overnight.” Torat Kohanim on this line asks the rhetorical question: “how do I know that the same rule applies to beasts which have laboured for you? The word שכיר followed by פעולת, “labour of,” shows that it applies not only to human beings who have laboured for you, but as well to animals and the soil that has worked for you.? When this verse is discussed in the Talmud, there is no reference to the soil.

You shall not curse one who cannot hear, and before one who cannot see you shall not place a stumbling block; and you shall be in awe of your God. I am Hashem.

לא תקלל חרש THOU SHALT NOT CURSE THE DEAF — I have here only the law that one must not curse the deaf: whence do I know that any person is included in this prohibition and that the meaning is, Thou shalt not curse even the deaf? Because Scripture states (Exodus 22:27) "Thou shalt not curse בעמך, anyone among thy people". But if this be so why does Scripture say חרש and does not use some more general expression? It does so in order to offer an analogy: What is the case with the חרש? He is one who cannot hear your curse and therefore cannot feel aggrieved, but he has the characteristic of being a living person! The same applies to all living, thus excluding a dead person, who though he cannot hear and feel aggrieved, is not living (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 13; cf. also Sanhedrin 66a). ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל THOU SHALT NOT PUT A STUMBLING BLOCK BEFORE THE BLIND — This implies: "Give not a person who is "blind" in a matter an advice which is improper for him. Do not say to him: "Sell your field and buy from the proceeds of the sale an ass", the fact being that you are endeavouring to circumvent him and to take it (the field) from him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 14). ויראת מאלהיך BUT THOU SHALT BE AFRAID OF THY GOD — Because in this case it is not given to human beings to know whether the intention of this man (the offender) was for the advantage or the disadvantage of the person whom he advised, and he thus might be able to evade the responsibility by saying: "I meant it for the best", Scripture therefore states with reference to him: "But thou shall be afraid of thy God" Who is cognizant of thy secret thoughts. Similarly in all actions where it is given only to the heart of him who does it to know the motive that prompts him and where other people have no insight into it, Scripture states, "But be afraid of thy God!" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 2 14; Bava Metzia 58b).

THOU SHALT NOT CURSE THE DEAF. “From this verse I know only [that one may not curse] the deaf. Whence do I know that one may not curse anybody? From the words of Scripture: Of thy people thou shalt not curse. If so, why does it state [here] ‘the deaf’? It is to teach us that ‘the deaf’ has been singled out by Scripture [here] because [although he is unable to hear and feel hurt], he has the characteristic of being alive, thus exluding [from the scope of this prohibition] the dead [who, though they are like the deaf in their inability to hear and feel hurt], are unlike them in being no longer alive.” This is Rashi’s language, and so it is taught in the Torath Kohanim. But the interpretation of the Gemara is not so. Rather, Scripture first warned against [cursing] the dignitaries of the people, the judge or ruler, saying, Thou shalt not curse ‘elohim’ (the judges) nor curse a ruler of thy people. Then it gave another admonition [here] against cursing the unfortunate ones of the people, like the deaf, and from them [i.e., from both classes of people, the distinguished and the unfortunate] we learn by a general proposition that we must not curse anyone of the rest of the people, since from beginning to end [from “the ruler” to “the deaf”] they are all included in this prohibition. And the word b’amcha (of thy people — a ruler ‘of thy people’) is interpreted [by the Gemara] to mean only those who conduct themselves in the manner of thy people, thus excluding the wicked. According to the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse mentions cursing the deaf [in order that we may deduce] that if in the case of one who cannot hear and will not become incensed by the curse, the Torah nonetheless admonished against cursing him, how much more so [is it prohibited to curse] one who hears and feels the insult, and will become hot-tempered because of it! Moreover, Scripture always admonishes against doing that which is frequent, for a person is inclined to curse the deaf and put a stumbling-block before the blind since he does not fear them, because they know not, neither do they understand. Therefore [it states here], and thou shalt fear thy G-d, Who sees the secret things. And He added another prohibition against cursing rulers, the prince and the judge, because it is usual for people to curse them in their bed-chamber when in judging him he lets him go forth condemned, and there are many harms that are caused by cursing a prince or a judge, for the masses of people in their foolishness will hate them and will thus be stirred to rise up against them, while in truth the prince and judge establish the land by their justice.

So too, "you shall not curse the deaf" — because you have the power [to do so without fear of retaliation]. And so too "before the blind" [you shall not place a stumbling block]. "And you shall fear your God" — for He is able to punish you by making you deaf and blind.

At this point the Torah warns that one must not cause distress to one’s fellow man by undermining his dignity, his self image and the image he enjoys among his peers. Example are: לא תקלל חרש, this is a damage that the deaf person does not even become aware of. Next, the Torah discusses tangible damages, such as לפני עור לא תתן מכשול, indirect damages, for who knows if the blind will trip over the obstacle? The one causing even indirect damage is held responsible by the Torah. [this is presumably in the realm of heavenly judgment, seeing that the Talmud feels that people, as opposed to animals, who have eyes in their head, should watch out for obstacles in their path. Ed.]

לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse the deaf.” The reason the Torah used the example of the deaf person in this verse was to teach you to apply logic. If the Torah forbids you to curse the deaf person who does not hear it and therefore does not feel angry or saddened by such treatment of him on your part, how much more so must we not curse someone whose faculties of hearing are not impaired. All of these directives are designed to improve a person’s basic character traits and to ensure that he will not become the victim of bad and addictive habits. The prohibition to curse the deaf is not based on the Torah’s consideration of the victim, rather it is for the protection of the person doing the cursing. The Torah does not want such a person even to mouth curses where these have no visible effect; otherwise, the same person, being already in the habit of uttering curses will do so where they do immediate harm. When one has trained oneself not to curse even the deaf, one will be doubly careful not to curse those who can hear. The example of not cursing the deaf is a precedent applying to any situations of a similar nature. The Torah chooses examples from real life; similarly the Torah exhorts not to put obstacles in the path of the blind because they are not able to identify of who tried to cause them harm. Unfortunately, people who do have the habit of taking advantage of the helpless tend to be guilty of such examples as mentioned by the Torah. The words: “you shall fear the Lord,” after the warning not to place obstacles in the path of those who cannot see is a reminder that G’d can see what you do. The use of the expression ויראת מאלו-היך occurs usually when the matter is left to your heart, i.e. there is no police restraining your behaviour. Similar comments were made by Solomon in Proverbs 24,12: “if you say: ‘we did not know anything about this,’ surely He who looks into the hearts will understand (the truth), the One who preserves your life will know; will He not repay everyone according to his deeds?” This is also the reminder of our sages in Avot 2,1: “know what is above you, a seeing eye, an ear that listens, and all your deeds are being recorded in a book.”

Do not curse the deaf. Rashi explains that this applies to any person, and it specifies deaf to tell you that just as the deaf person is alive, etc. And a reason can be given to explain why specifically a deaf person was mentioned: Because our Sages said (Bava Kamma 85b) that if one blinds another’s eye, he pays the value of the eye, but if one causes another to become deaf, he pays the value of his entire self. Based on this premise, one might mistakenly think that a deaf person is considered like a dead person and that one is not liable for cursing him. From this, you would deduce that one is exempt from cursing the dead, while the deaf is considered alive regarding one who curses him. One cannot suggest that perhaps the verse intends to make one liable for cursing the dead, similar to the deaf who is considered like the dead. If that were the case, the verse should have remained silent and not said do not curse the deaf, and I would understand from do not curse among your people (Exodus 22:27) that everyone is included, whether living or dead, because why would we distinguish between them? Rather, it is certainly the case that according to Torah law, one who curses the dead is exempt, and one might think that the deaf is also included in the category of the dead, since causing deafness requires payment of the person’s entire value, as if his entire existence became nullified. Therefore, the verse teaches do not curse the deaf and all those like him who are alive, even though they are considered like the dead, such as the four types of people whom our Sages considered as dead (Nedarim 64a). One is liable for cursing all of them. “And before a blind person, do not place a stumbling block.” Rashi explains: “Do not give advice, etc.” For it is not possible to interpret [this] as a literally blind person and a literal stumbling block, because it says and you shall fear your God, and this [verse] specifically refers to matters entrusted to the heart.

לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse a deaf person.” The Talmud in Sanhedrin 66 points out that the Torah has forbidden cursing notables such as judges and kings, when it wrote אלהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך already in Exodus 22,27, and here it equally forbids cursing less prominent people, even those who cannot hear that they are being cursed. Once even a deaf person is included in this legislation it is clear that one must not curse anyone. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warned against cursing the deaf, as seeing that the fact that he cannot hear the curse he cannot feel insulted or enraged by it, it follows that one must not curse people who can hear the curse and who will feel shamed by it. Furthermore, as is the Torah’s custom, the example for legislation selected is always something near at hand, i.e. people feel free to curse the deaf and to trip up the blind as they are not afraid of being identified and being called to account for this. This is why the Torah had to add:ויראת מאלוקיך, “you shall fear your G’d,” i.e. He will see and punish what people do not see or do not hear. Cursing rulers, something which usually takes place in the privacy of one’s home where one is not overheard is in addition something pernicious, as it is usually motivated by one’s personal pique against such a ruler, while one forgets that the exercise by this ruler of his appointed functions is what prevents our society from degenerating into anarchy. This is why the Torah felt the need to spell out an additional prohibition against cursing dignitaries, although the law could have been derived logically from our verse alone.

לא תקלל חרש, the Torah uses an example of everyday occurrences. The emphasis is on the penultimate syllable on account of the dagesh in the first ל. Similar constructions affecting the emphasis occur in ivver, or gibben, both of which also are emphasised on the first syllable as they have a dagesh in the vav or beyt respectively.

You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not show favor to the poor, nor shall you defer to the great — in truth you shall judge your neighbor.

לא תעשו עול במשפט YE SHALL NOT DO INJUSTICE IN JUDGMENT — This teaches us that the judge who perverts judgment is called an "unjust person" (עַוָּל), hateful and detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination. He is rightly called thus for the unjust person (עַוָּל) is called by Scripture "abomination", as it is said (Deuteronomy 25:16) "For all that do [such things] all that do injustice (עַוָּל=עֹשֵׂה עָוֶל) are an abomination (תועבה) unto the Lord thy God”. The abomination (תועבה), on its part, is called by Scripture חרם and שקץ, as it is said (Deuteronomy 7:26) "Neither shalt thou bring an abomination (תועבה) into thine house, lest thou be a doomed thing (חרם) like it; but thou shall regard it as שקץ. לא תשא פני דל THOU SHALT NOT RESPECT THE PERSON OF THE INDIGENT — i. e. thou shalt not say, "This is a poor man, and the rich man has in any case the duty of supporting him; I will find in favor of him (the poor man) and he will consequently obtain some support in a respectable fashion (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 2). ולא תהדר פני גדול NOR HONOR THE PERSON OF THE MIGHTY — thou shalt not say, “This is a rich man, or, this man is of noble descent (lit., the son of great people) how can I possibly put him to shame and be witness to his shame? There is punishment for such a thing!” It is for this reason that Scripture states, "thou shalt not honor the person of the mighty” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 3). בצדק תשפט עמיתך IN RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALT THOU JUDGE THY COMPANION — Take this as the words imply (i.e. take the word צדק as what it usually implies: strict right). Another explanation is: Judge thy fellow man with an inclination in his favour (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 4; Shevuot 30a).

"You shall not commit injustice" — this speaks of judges and witnesses. "The face of the great" — one great in wealth, like Barzillai.

Now the Torah addresses the judges who are charged with dispensing fair judgment. לא תעשו עול במשפט, a warning not to relate sternly to one litigant while being lenient towards his opponent. Do not allow one litigant to sit down while his opponent is required to remain standing upright. This is followed by admonitions applicable to different levels of leadership in the people and the spirit of jealousy which often prevails between competing layers of the bureaucracy. Examples are: Doeg badmouthing David so as to gain favour with the king. (Samuel I 22,9) From such admonitions it is only a small step to warn against badmouthing people generally, especially when it even involves slander. The sin of slandering is considered so serious by the prophet Ezekiel that he describes it as being equal to bloodshed (Ezekiel 22,9)

לא תעשו עול במשפט. "Do not render an unfair decision in judgment." This warning is addressed to litigants who are not to try and secure favourable judgment by ruses. If this were to happen it would be considered an עול, an injustice, a perversion of justice. This is the reason the Torah addressed the prohibition in the plural form, i.e. litigants (pl).You may understand this as follows: עול במשפט, the injustice would occur during judgment the judges hand down seeing that the judge is obligated to arrive at his decision on the basis of the arguments presented by the litigants. This is also the reason that this commandment followed the directive not to place obstacles before the "blind." Usually the reason a judge arrives at a faulty decision is that one of the litigants has deceived him. Another meaning of this verse is that if a litigant finds that the judge found in his favour although he himself is aware that such a ruling was unfair, he must not accept the judgment but must strive to have such a judgment set aside. This is another reason the Torah used the plural here, seeing that we deal with injustice to at least two parties. The verse also addresses the judge himself. If the judge himself feels that the judgment he is bound to hand down on the basis of the evidence presented is unjust, he would become guilty of perverted judgment. He is to hand down only the kind of verdict he himself will be comfortable with. We also need to consider the vowel patach under the letter ב in the word במשפט. This definitive article reminds us of something we learned in Beytzah 16 that on New Year's Day G'd allocates to man his material needs for the new year, based on what he deserves. If a judge were to declare the guilty as innocent and vice versa he would pervert G'd's judgment. As a result, the victim would question G'd's fairness as it were.

בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, “with righteousness you shall judge your fellow.” The verse speaks about the fairness to be applied in the judicial process. Justice must not be perverted. He who applies fair rules thereby strengthens the throne of the Almighty. It is said of G’d’s throne that “righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne,” (Psalms 89,16); if someone perverts the judicial system he thereby undermines G’d’s throne. This is a demeaning of G’d’s glory. The Midrash Tehillim 82 phrases the thought in these words: “if the judge judges righteously the Shechinah will be with him;” we know this as David said in Psalms 82,1: “the Lord is present in a community of true judges.” If the judges fails to apply these standards the Shechinah withdraws. We have another verse in Psalms 12,6 confirming this where it is written: “due to the groans of the plundered poor and needy, I will now act, says the Lord,” and the Holy Spirit is reported as exclaiming (Psalms 108,6) ”exalt Yourself over the heaven let Your glory be all over the earth!”.

You shall not commit a wrong in judgment. This language is also used at the end of the section: You shall not commit a wrong in judgment, in measurement, in weight, or in volume (Leviticus 19:35). It appears that the explanation for both is the same, namely that one should not commit a wrong that is in truth and justice, meaning that the action itself is just and righteous, and logic dictates that it should be so, yet the matter is still a wrong. And how is this so? This is what [the Torah] clarifies when it states: Do not show favoritism to a poor person (Leviticus 19:15). Rashi explains: “Do not say, ‘This person is poor and the rich person is obligated to support him, so I will rule in his favor, thus enabling him to be supported in a dignified manner.’” This matter is truly proper and obligatory, since certainly the rich person is obligated to support the poor person, and thus the matter is just. Nonetheless, it is still a wrong in judgment because the word in judgment restricts the context; it means that in another context it would not be a wrong, since certainly the rich person is obligated to support the poor person, and one may extract from the rich person enough for the poor person’s sustenance. But in the context of judgment, it is a wrong, since one should not alter the course of justice for this reason. Rather, justice should follow its proper course, and at another time, the rich person should be obligated to support [the poor person]. Similarly, in the nearby matter of measurement and weight, a person might act in judgment and yet the matter is a wrong. How so? There are people who reduce their measure and sell at a lower price than others in order to attract customers, who think they are selling at a discount, not realizing that the measure has been reduced. And in truth, they are acting in judgment because they are not robbing people of anything, yet it is still a wrong since they are doing this deceptively and causing others to lose customers. All similar cases that have an aspect of justice and an aspect of wrong are included in this prohibition. And from the fact that it says here “do not do,” it seems to me that this is not speaking about perverting justice, for that is a negative commandment that does not involve an action. Rather, it contains a warning that one should not permit for oneself what one forbids to others, for “any judge from whom money is extracted in judgment is not a judge” (Bava Batra 58b). Even though its simple meaning is even if one burns their stack of grain, etc. (see Sifrei Deuteronomy 1:17), nevertheless there is also an allusion regarding the judge, that they should be free from all blemish and injustice, and only then should they correct others. Like the story of the one who first cut down their own tree that was extending into the public domain at night (Jerusalem Talmud, Bava Batra, Chapter 2, Halakhah 11). Therefore, it says to the judges: do not do yourselves the thing that you rule as judgment, for it is an injustice. And perhaps this is what Rashi intended when he explained that the judge who corrupts judgment is called “injustice,” “hated,” etc. The language of “corruption” indicates that it is not speaking about perverting justice, but rather about corrupting righteous judgment. For when one does not fulfill what one rules for others, one corrupts the judgment, as many will protest against the ruling and will not want to fulfill it because they base themselves on the judge. Therefore, Rashi brings as proof the verse for an abomination to God… is anyone who does injustice, which is stated in the section about weights (Deuteronomy 25:16). And there it states, You shall not have in your pocket a stone and a stone, large and small (Deuteronomy 25:13). This refers to one who weighs for others with the small weight but for himself with the large one, which is like the judge who permits for himself what he forbids for others. Afterward, Rashi brings the verse, and you shall not bring an abomination into your house (Deuteronomy 7:26). For the judge from whom money is extracted in judgment is bringing an abomination into his house — what he rules as an abomination for others, he brings into his own house. And this is a correct and clear allusion, and a precious matter. With righteousness shall you judge your fellow: Does this mean that one should judge only one’s fellow with righteousness but not one who is not one’s fellow? Perhaps due to this difficulty, they derived from here [the teaching in Shevuot 30] to judge every person favorably, but a wicked person should not be judged favorably and [such] a person should be presumed to maintain his established status. And if this is speaking about actual judgment [in court], it seems to me that it gives advice to a judge who wants to do as King David did — judgment for one and charity for the other (Sanhedrin 6b). One should not do this except for one’s fellow in Torah and commandments, but not for one who is not close to one, because they might conspire together. And some say that for this David prayed and said, I have done justice and righteousness; do not leave me to my oppressors (Psalms 119:121) — these are the conspirators whom he called “my oppressors.” Similarly, You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people applies specifically to one who acts as your people [i.e., observes Jewish law], but it is permitted to speak lashon hara about those who cause strife (Jerusalem Talmud, Peah 1:1), and some say it is a mitzvah to do so, so that the other person will know to protect himself from him. And if one does not do so, he transgresses You shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor, which Rashi explains as “to see his death when you can save him, etc.” So too is the matter. Therefore these verses are adjacent to each other.

You shall not go as a slanderer among your people; you shall not stand against the blood of your neighbor. I am Hashem.

לא תלך רכיל THOU SHALT NOT GO ABOUT AS A TALE BEARER — I say that because all those who sow discord between people and all who speak slander go into their friends' houses in order to spy out what evil they can see there, or what evil they can hear there so that they may tell it in the streets —they are called הולכי רכיל which it the same as הולכי רגילה, "people who go about spying"; espiement in O. F. A proof of my statement is the fact that we do not find anywhere the term רגיל used in Scripture except in connection with the expression הלך "to go". Examples are: the phrase here, לא תלך רכיל; (Jeremiah 6:28) "[They are all] walking as spies: they are brass and iron". But as for any other expressions for “slander”, the verb הלך is not used with them. Examples are (Psalms 101:5) "whoso privily slandereth his neighbour”; (Psalms 120:2) "false tongue"; (Psalms 12:4) "the tongue that speaketh proud things (slander)". For this reason I say that this expression (הולך רכיל) means "going about ומרגל, and spying out” (רגל = רכל), because the כ may interchange with ,ג since all letters the pronounciation of which are of the same place in the organs of speech may interchange with each other e. g., בי"ת with גימ"ל ,פ"א with כ"ף or with נו"ן ;קו"ף with זי"ן ;למ"ד with צד"י. And in a similar sense we have, (II Samuel 19:28) "He spied against thy servant [to my lord]” which implies, "he spied me out with subtly in order to speak evil about me to my lord״ (and thus וירגל comes to mean "to slander”). Similar is (Psalms 15:8): לא רגל על לשונו which means, "he has not spied out in order to have evil on his tongue”. Similarly the רוכל, the trader, is one who goes round and searches for (spies out) all kinds of merchandise, and so also the seller of perfumes which women use to make themselves nice, because he constantly goes about in the villages, he is called רוכל, which has the same meaning as רוגל. And its translation in the Targum לא תיכול קורצין, has the same meaning as (Daniel 3:8) "and they slandered (אכלו קורציהון) the Jews”; and as (Berakhot 58a) "he slandered him (אכל ביה קורצא בי מלכא) to the king”. It seems to me that people had the custom to eat a little snack in the house of him who listened to their slanderous words, and this served as the final confirmation that his (the slanderer's) statements were well founded and that he would maintain the truth of them. This "snack” was called אכילת קורצין, the word קורצא being connected in meaning with the root קרץ in (Proverbs 6:13) "He winketh (קורץ) with his eyes”, for it is the manner of all who go about slandering to wink with their eyes and to suggest their slanderous statements by innuendos in order that others who happen to hear them should not understand them. לא תעמד על דם רעך NEITHER SHALT THOU STAND AGAINST THE BLOOD OF THY FELLOW — witnessing his death, you being able to rescue him: if, for instance, he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or a robber is attacking him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Cha...

THOU SHALT NOT ‘THEILEICH RACHIL’ (GO UP AND DOWN AS A TALEBEARER) AMONG THY PEOPLE. “I say that because all those who sow discord [among brethren] and speak slander go into their friends’ houses in order to spy out what evil they can see or hear, so that they may tell it in the street — therefore they are called holchei rachil or holchei regilah (‘those who go about spying’) etc. And so did Onkelos translate [the verse before us]: lo theichul kurtzin [literally: ‘thou shalt not eat kurtzin’, which has the same meaning as], ‘va’achalu kartzeihon’ (and they brought accusation against) the Jews; ‘achlu kurtza (they slandered him) to the king.’ It appears to me that it was their custom to eat something in the house of him who accepted their slanderous words, this being a sort of final confirmation that the slanderer’s words are well-founded, and that he would stand by them. It was this snack that was called ‘the eating of kurtzin,’ [the word being associated with] the [Hebrew] expression, ‘koreitz’ (he that winketh) with his eyes, for such is the manner of all who go about slandering, to wink with their eyes, and to insinuate slanderous matters in order that [others who happen to] hear them should not understand them.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi].But his explanation of this rendition of Onkelos has neither rhyme nor reason. For one who listens to a slanderer does not swear to him that he will believe his words, and [therefore the slanderer] need not give him a sign or token [to believe him]! Even when one slanders a servant to his master, the master does not assure him that he will listen to him, and so what sense is there to this “eating” [by the slanderer, as Rashi mentioned]? And Nebuchadnezzar did what he decided to do on the basis of his own decision about the righteous ones, and He did not offer food to the slanderers [to establish the veracity of their report], neither did he swear to them [that he would believe them], nor did he in fact believe them. Instead, he asked [of the righteous ones], Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego etc., and he commanded that if henceforth they were to bow to the image of gold that he had made, he would forgive them for their transgressions in the past! [All this shows that va’achalu kartzeihon does not refer to a meal eaten by the slanderers, to serve as the final confirmation that their slander was well-grounded, since in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, where this expression occurs, the king did not accept their report!] Nor did King Darius offer food to the slanderers of Daniel, except for the wormwood and the gall, and yet it is written of them, those men that ‘achalu kartzohi’ of Daniel! And even if it is true that it was so done in those [later] times, but since Scripture states thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people, why should Onkelos have mentioned this foolish custom [of the slanderer eating a little snack in the house of him who listened to his slander...

"Rakhil" ["tale-bearer"] — similar to "your wares [rekhullatech] from all the fine spices of a spice-dealer [rokhel]" (Ezekiel 27:22); the meaning is the slanderer, for the spice-dealer [rokhel] transfers goods — he buys from one and sells to another, and the tale-bearer reveals to one what he heard from another. "You shall not stand over the blood of your fellow" — that one should not join company with bloodthirsty men; and it is well known that many have been murdered and killed on account of slander, as Doeg the Edomite testifies. The meaning of "I am Hashem": [I] see what you do in secret.

לא תלך רכיל בעמיך, "Do not go about your people bearing tales." Our sages in the Zohar have already preceded me in drawing attention to the apparent duplication when the Torah speaks both about לא תלך, "do not go," and רכיל, "bearing tales." The latter word implies that one goes from one person to another. So why do we need the words: "do not go?" The Zohar's answer in Nasso subsection Idra Rabbah 128 is of a mystical dimension. I believe the plain meaning of the Torah is a warning to each individual not to become a vehicle for potential defamatory information about a second party. How does one prevent this? By not revealing any information even innocent information in the hearing of anyone who might use this information or part of it and turn it into something defamatory. If that were to happen then the person who merely related the original harmless sounding story shares part of the guilt. The Torah purposely writes בעמיך, "amongst your own people," referring to people close to you who are indiscreet and blabber about any confidence they have heard or overheard. G'd adds: "I am the Lord" i.e. I am going to track down whence the defamatory remarks originated. Another aspect of our verse is that the Torah warns that we must not associate with nor tolerate the presence of people who spread evil gossip. Providing such people with a home or otherwise assisting them makes the host an accessory to their sin, part of the cause. לא תעמוד על דם רעך, "Do not stand idly by when your colleague's blood is being spilled." This part of the verse is a natural corollary of the prohibition to bear tales. When one becomes aware of an assassination attempt for instance, one has to warn the potential victim in order to enable him to save himself. The Torah writes the words: "Do not stand by idly, etc," to warn us that relaying a warning to a person of an attempt to assassinate him which one has overheard does not fall under the prohibition not to bear tales. Failure to warn the potential victim which results in the murder being carried out makes the party who did not issue the warning guilty of violating this commandment. Jeremiah 40,14 reports that Gedalyah ben Achikom was warned of an assassination attempt against him by a fellow Jew Ishmael ben Netanyah. Gedalyah's refusal to believe that he was in danger resulted in his death at the hand of assassins.

לא תלך רכיל, “do not walk around as a talebearer;” do not tell people who have been found guilty at court that if you had been the only judge in that litigation you would have declared the party found guilty as innocent. Seeing that you were in the minority, you regret that your voice was not heard. (Sifra) An alternate interpretation: [according to the interpretation that follows the absence of the letter ו before the word לא is of decisive significance. Ed.] Talebearing and standing by idly while your fellow Jew’s blood is being shed are part of the same sin. The Torah warns against talebearing as the next step would result in standing by idly while another Jew’s innocent blood is being shed. What started out as being “only” words, is liable to wind up as complicity in murder. The prophet Ezekiel 22,9 writing: אנשי רכיל היו בך, “there were talebearers amongst you, continues that verse by writing: “for the sake of bloodshed.” In other words: talebearing is no better that bloodshed. Still another interpretation of our verse: ordinarily the rule of not to go around and bear tales applies. However, if you became privy to a plot being hatched to kill an innocent person you must not plead this law as an excuse not to have warned the endangered party, or have reported it to the police. לא תלך רכיל, “do not spread evil tales that have come to your attention, but be the one where this practice stops from gaining further ground.”Onkelos renders this commandment as: לא תיכול קורצין, do not make evil gossip public;” the root of the word קורצין, is קרץ, blinking with one’s eyes i.e. instead of mouthing bad comments about people doing the same covertly. The term is found in that sense in the Book of Daniel, (3,8) [which is written in Aramaic, i.e. Targum, Ed.] ואכלו קרציהם דיהודאי, “they defamed the Jews by blinking with their eyes.”The meaning of the word: הכריזו, is to defame from heaven. In the Targum Yonatan on Samuel II 22,14 אכלי מן שמים, “G-d thundered from Heaven.”

לא תלך רכיל, “do not be a gossipmonger.” According to Nachmanides Onkelos’ translation of these words as לא תיכול קורצין, describes someone raising his voice. Yonathan similarly renders קרא בגרון, in Isaiah 58,1 as אכלי בגרונך, “call out loudly with your throat.” He quotes more examples of translating רכיל as something involving making something public by means of sound. An alternate rendering describes רכילות as publication of the information through unmistakable gestures with one’s eyes. לא תעמוד על דם רעך, “do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow is being shed.” Seeing that the Torah does not link these two injunctions by the letter ו, i.e. ולא תעמוד וגו', some commentators believe that the entire verse contains one single prohibition, the latter half of the verse being the interpretation of the first half. The meaning would then be: do not carry tales in order that in the end you will not stand by idly when your fellow’s blood will be spilled. It is assumed that he who accepts slander against his fellow, i.e. believes the accusation, will out of anger take physical action against the person whom he perceives to have been guilty of what the slanderer accused him of. This is why our sages said that לשון הרע, “slander eventually kills three people.” (Tanchuma, Metzora, 2)

לא תלך רכיל, do not go around bearing tales (untrue ones). We find a similar verse in Daniel 3,8 “Chaldeans slandered the Jews.” Samuel II 22,14 ירעם משמים, G’d thundered forth from heaven, is also translated as אכלי, by Yonathan ben Uzziel, being the equivalent of the Hebrew רכיל in our verse, i.e. raising one’s voice. לא תעמוד על דם רעך, do not stand by idly but go to his assistance.

You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and you shall not bear sin on his account.

ולא תשא עליו חטא [THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE REBUKE THY COMPANION] AND NOT BEAR A SIN ON ACCOUNT OF HIM — i. e. though rebuking him thou shalt not expose him to shame (lit., make his face grow pale) in public, in which case you will bear sin on account of him (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 8; Arakhin 16b).

THOU SHALT NOT HATE THY BROTHER IN THY HEART. Because it is the way of those who hate a person to cover up their hatred in their hearts, just as it is said, He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, but he layeth up deceit within him, therefore Scripture speaks of the usual events, [mentioning, thou shalt not hate thy brother ‘in thy heart,’ but the law forbids all hating, even if done openly]. THOU SHALT SURELY REBUKE THY NEIGHBOR, This constitutes another commandment, that we must teach him reproof of instruction. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR SIN BECAUSE OF HIM, for you will bear sin because of his transgression if you do not rebuke him. Onkelos’ rendition tends towards this explanation, for he translated, “and do not receive guilt because of him,” meaning that you should not be punished by his sin. Following these commandments He then said [in the following verse] that you are to love your neighbor. Thus he who hates his neighbor violates a negative commandment, and he who loves him, fulfills a positive commandment. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the expression ‘hochei’ach tochiach’ (thou shalt surely rebuke), is similar to ‘V’hochiach Avraham’ (And Abraham reproved) Abimelech. The verse here is thus stating: “do not hate your brother in your heart when he does something to you against your will, but instead you are to reprove him, saying, ‘Why did you do thus to me?’ and you will not bear sin because of him by covering up your hatred of him in your heart and not telling him, for when you will reprove him, he will justify himself before you [so that you will have no cause to hate him], or he will regret his action and admit his sin, and you will forgive him.” After that He admonishes [in the following verse] that you are not to take vengeance of him, nor bear a grudge in your heart against him because of what he has done to you, for it is possible that he will not hate him, but yet he will remember in his heart his neighbor’s sin against him; therefore He admonished him that he is to erase his brother’s sin and transgression against him from his heart. Following that admonition, He commanded that he love him as himself.

"You shall not hate your brother" — this is the opposite of "you shall love your neighbor." All these commandments are planted in the heart, and by observing them [Israel] will dwell in the Land, for it was because of causeless hatred that the Second Temple was destroyed. "You shall surely rebuke [him]" — lest you suspect him of something that was not so; and this is the meaning of "you shall not bear sin on his account" — for punishment will come upon you because of him.

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, "do not hate your brother in your heart, etc." The Torah urges us that if we harbour some resentment against a fellow Jew not to bottle it up in one's heart saying nothing but hating the Jew in question. One has to come out with one's feelings into the open, בפיך, and rebuke the person who one thinks as guilty of having bad-mouthed him or otherwise hurt him to cause such hatred. הוכח תוכיח, "rebuke him, even repeatedly," ולא תשא עליו חטא, "so that you will not bear a sin on account of him." Do not assume in your heart that whatever it is the other Jew has done to cause you to hate him he has done purposely and that he continues to feel hostile towards you. Give him the benefit of the doubt and discuss the matter with him. The discussion could lead to one of two possible results. 1) He may explain to you that he had a good reason for what he did so that there is no reason to hate him. 2) He may change his attitude towards you, undertaking not to continue his hostile conduct. As a result he becomes "your friend, your brother." Another approach to our verse is based on the unusual structure of the verse. It should have read: "לא תשנא בלבבך את אחיך, the word "in your heart" which we consider central should not have been written at the end. The source of the hatred, the heart, should have been mentioned before the object of the hatred, a fellow Jew. If the Torah reversed this order there must be a reason for this. I believe that the message is that a person should not think that the Torah only forbids the kind of hatred which is the forerunner of acts of revenge or violence but does not forbid harbouring ill feelings towards someone in one's heart. By mentioning the object of one's hatred immediately next to the prohibition to hate, the Torah made it clear that even the kind of hatred which is not related to acts of retaliation is forbidden. As soon as a person distances himself mentally and emotionally from his fellow Jew he begins to violate the prohibition of hatred as defined by the Torah in this verse. We need to examine why the Torah chose the term אחיך, "your brother," when describing who it is you hate, whereas the person that you are advised or directed to admonish is described as עמיתך, "your colleague." Perhaps the best way to understand this distinction is based on what we read in Tannah de bey Eliyahu Rabbah at the end of chapter 3. We are told that if one observes a man known as a Torah scholar commit an obvious violation of a Torah precept, one should not think about this during the night, but rather assume that said scholar had already repented his mistake. We also find in Pessachim 113 where the Talmud discusses the implications of Exodus 23,5 that one must not stand by idly when the ass of someone whom one hates breaks down under its burden but one must assist the owner to unload the beast. The Talmud explains that the שנאך who is described as the owner of the donkey is a person whom one has observed commit ...

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, “do not hate your brother (fellow Jew) in your heart.” If it has come to your attention that that Jew made negative comments about you, accused you falsely behind your back of wrongdoing, do not bottle your resentment up in your heart by hating him.” You should rather הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, “remonstrate with your colleague about having wrongly accused you,” asking him what prompted him to badmouth you. Perhaps, once matters are in the open you can demonstrate to your colleague that he completely misinterpreted one of your actions. Alternately, you will become aware that what had been reported to you as having said by him about you was misrepresented, and not meant detrimentally at all. (B’chor Shor) You are to act in this manner even if you are convinced that your remonstrations will not help at all. In fact, your failure to make an attempt at reconciliation will be held against you by the heavenly tribunal. This is why the verse concludes with the words: ולא תשא עליו חטא, “so that you will not burden him with a sin.” עליו “on his account;” this would be parallel to Psalms 44,23: כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, “for it is for Your sake that we are being killed every day.” Compare also: Psalms 69,8: כי עליך נשאתי חרפה, “for I have been reviled for Your sake.”

You shall surely rebuke your fellow, and you shall not bear sin because of him. Specifically, rebuke your fellow regarding [the observance of] commandments, to the exclusion of three groups who do not accept rebuke, and they are the wicked, the fools, and the mockers. And your mnemonic for this is [the Hebrew word] רכ“ל [rakhal, talebearer, which stands for רשעים, כסילים, לצים — the wicked, fools, mockers], as it is written Do not rebuke a mocker (Proverbs 9:8), and it is written Do not speak in the ears of a fool (Proverbs 23:9), and it is written He who rebukes a wicked person [gets] a blemish (Proverbs 9:7). For every gossiper rejoices in the misfortune [of others], and when he sees a shameful matter in his fellow, he never rebukes him to turn him from his way, but instead goes and spies on him in order to spread the news publicly and publicize his disgrace, as is the way of all gossipers. These three groups despise rebuke; therefore there is no obligation to rebuke them. And because it is said “and you shall not bear sin on his account,” it means that if you do not rebuke him, then his sin will be borne upon you. This is because all of Israel are guarantors for one another. When a person lends to their fellow and requires a guarantor, if the guarantor sees that the borrower is squandering their money, they rebuke them out of fear of their guarantee, lest they be required to pay on their behalf. Similarly, the mutual responsibility of all of Israel causes rebuke, and if the person does not accept the rebuke, then the rebuker is free from them because the letter of the law does not dictate that one person should suffer for another who is not under their control. However, in this one matter, the people of Israel became guarantors: when one has the ability to protest but does not protest, then it is justified that they be held accountable and bear the other’s sin if they do not rebuke them. They gave a parable about this: A man was drilling beneath himself in a ship. All the people on the ship shouted at him, “What are you doing?” He replied to them, “But I am drilling only beneath myself.” They said to him, “If water enters beneath you, the entire ship will sink.”Similarly, Job said to his companions, Even if I have indeed erred, my error remains with me (Job 19:4). And what did his companions reply to him? For he adds rebellion to his sin; he strikes his fist among us (Job 34:37). Therefore, it is said, “and you shall not bear sin on his account.” And adjacent to the commandment of rebuke is the verse “Do not hate your brother in your heart.” Because when love is prevalent among Israel, each person desires the good of their fellow and therefore rebukes them so that they will not stumble into sin. But when people hate each other, one never rebukes the other; on the contrary, they flatter them saying, “You acted properly and did no wrong,” while their entire intention is to bring evil upon them because they rejoice in their downfall. This trait, unfortunately, has been the blessing of our people from the day when the fist of baseless hatred prevailed since the destruction of the Second Temple onward, and to this day it has not departed. The affliction continues to spread until God will look down and see, and remove the heart of stone from within us.

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, “do not hate your brother in your heart.” Some commentators interpret this line as “if you see your fellow man commit some sin do not say to yourself: ‘I wish he would continue in this way,’ but remonstrate with him and try to get him to desist and to improve his ways. Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah uses real life examples, i.e. people keeping their disapproval of others or even hatred of others to themselves, the Torah urges that If one has a legitimate reason to disapprove of one’s neighbour’s lifestyle, one should not bottle this up within oneself, but should discuss it openly with the party concerned so as to give him a chance to mend his ways. ולא תשא עליו חטא, “so that you will not bear a sin on account of him.” If your fellow sins because you did not call his error to his attention, you will share in his sin. Not only this, but the Torah adds that you are obligated to love your fellow man.” (Verse 18) Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse, i.e. the words הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, is similar to when Avraham remonstrated with Avimelech. (Genesis 21,25) He remonstrated with Avimelech who had allowed his, Avraham’s wells to be either shut down or to be claimed by his own people as theirs, instead of bearing a grudge in his heart against Avimelech. The result was an agreement between the two. When such rebuke is administered with discretion it may often result in resolving a dispute. Having advised us not to bear grudges without first having voiced our grievances, the Torah also instructs us not to harbour feelings of revenge for injustices real or unproven. Having taught us not to entertain negative feelings against our fellows, the Torah proceeds to demand that we relate positively to them, i.e ואהבת לרעך כמוך. You will note that the Torah does not write רעך, but לרעך. Had the Torah written the word רעך, it would have meant that we are instructed to love our fellow man’s body, his person as much as our own, an impossible task. As it is, the Torah demands that we relate to our fellowman’s possessions with the same degree of concern as we do to our own possessions. You should be as concerned for the welfare of your fellowman as for your own.

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, if he has done something evil to you, do not behave as if you continue to love him, all the time setting an ambush for him in your heart. (compare Jeremiah 9:7) Such an attitude is unhealthy, but הוכח תוכיח, rebuke him for what he has done and as a result you will restore harmonious relations. ולא תשא עליו חטא, in your heart.

You shall not take vengeance, and you shall not bear enmity against the children of your people; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Hashem.

לא תקם THOU SHALT NOT AVENGE — If one says to another “Lend me your sickle", and he replies, “No!", and the next day he (the latter) says to him (the former), “Lend me your hatchet”, and he retorts, “I am not going to lend it to you, just as you refused to lend me your sickle״ — this is avenging. And what is “bearing a grudge”? If one says to another, “Lend me your hatchet”, and he replies “No!” and on the next day he says to him “Lend me your sickle”, and he replies: “Here it is; I am not like you, because you would not lend me” — this is called “bearing a grudge (נטירה)” because he retains (נוטר) enmity in his heart although he does not actually avenge himself (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 10-11; Yoma 23a). ואהבת לרעך כמוך THOU SHALT LOVE THY FELLOW MAN AS THYSELF —Rabbi Akiba said: “This is a fundamental principle of the Torah” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 12; Talmud Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:3).

AND THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. This is an expression by way of overstatement, for a human heart is not able to accept a command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Moreover, Rabbi Akiba has already come and taught, “Your life takes precedence over the life of your fellow-being.” Rather, the commandment of the Torah means that one is to love one’s fellow-being in all matters, as one loves all good for oneself. It is possible that since it does not say “and thou shalt love ‘eth rei’acha’ as thyself,” but instead it likened them in the word ‘l’rei’acha’ [which literally means “to” thy neighbor], and similarly it states with reference to a proselyte, and thou shalt love ‘lo’ (him) [but literally: “to” him] as thyself, that the meaning thereof is to equate the love of both [himself and his neighbor, or himself and the proselyte] in his mind. For sometimes a person will love his neighbor in certain matters, such as doing good to him in material wealth but not with wisdom and similar matters. But if he loves him completely, he will want his beloved friend to gain riches, properties, honor, knowledge and wisdom. However [because of human nature] he will still not want him to be his equal, for there will always be a desire in his heart that he should have more of these good things than his neighbor. Therefore Scripture commanded that this degrading jealousy should not exist in his heart, but instead a person should love to do abundance of good for his fellow-being as he does for himself, and he should place no limitations upon his love for him. It is for this reason that it is said of Jonathan’s [love for David], for he loved him as he loved his own soul, because Jonathan had removed [altogether] the attribute of jealousy from his heart, and he said [to David], and thou shalt be king over Israel, etc. Our Rabbis have already explained the matters of taking vengeance and guarding a grudge [which are here forbidden], that they apply to cases where there is no monetary obligation, such as, “Lend me your sickle, lend me your hatchet.” For in a case where his friend owes him money, such as because of damage that he caused him or for similar reasons, one is not obliged to let his friend go free. On the contrary, he should sue him before the court and receive payment from him, on the basis of the verse which states, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him, and he [who caused the damage] is himself obliged to pay just as he must pay back that which he borrowed or robbed; and how much more so in matters of life, [the next of kin] should take vengeance and guard the grudge against the murderer, until the blood of his brother be redeemed by a court that will render judgment according to the laws of the Torah.

"You shall not take revenge, and you shall not bear a grudge" — these are explained in the words of the Sages. "You shall love your neighbor" — in the view of many, the lamed [prefix] is a secondary [preposition], like the lamed in "for Avner" [le-Avner] (2 Samuel 3:33). In my opinion it is to be understood as it reads — that one should desire good for his fellow as for himself. The meaning of "I am Hashem": for I am the one God who created all of you.

There follows a general, all inclusive rule to be observed in relations towards one’s fellow, phrased as ואהבת לרעך כמוך, telling us to apply the same yardstick to our concern for our fellow that we would want applied to ourselves if we were in his shoes in similar situations.

לא תקום ולא תטור, "Do not take vengeance and do not bear a grudge." Yuma 23 defines vengeance as someone responding in kind to a hateful act by his neighbour he has experienced, whereas the "grudge" is defined as repaying a hateful act with a kind act pointing out, however, that one is morally superior to the person who committed the hateful act. The proof for this is the verse following that one should "love your neighbour as yourself." The reason the Torah has to say this is to indicate that it is G'd's wish that we relate to our fellow Jews with the same love we have for ourselves. If the person described as bearing a grudge told his neighbour that despite the fact that the latter refused to lend him his spade, he in turn was willing to lend him his own spade, he indicated that he had harboured resentment against his neighbour first. G'd tells us that the reason we must not bear a grudge is because the Lord is our G'd. This means that by means of individual Israelites experiencing a unification of their hearts, G'd's Unity itself is enhanced. This is all based on the kabbalistic concept that all Jewish souls are branches of the Holy name of G'd (י־ה־ו־ה) based on Deut. 32,9 "for His people are part of Him" (compare Zohar volume 3 page 16). The Torah was very shrewd in giving these directives to the Israelite in a staggered form. 1) First of all, one is not to hate a fellow Jew; 2) next, one is not take revenge for something a fellow Jew has done to him; 3) one is not even to bear a grudge; 4) one is to love one's fellow Jew. The Torah uses 2 different descriptions for a fellow Jew, a) "your brother;" b) "your colleague" or "member of your people." This tells us that the legislation applies only to Jews who basically are Torah-observant but with whom you have a disagreement of a personal nature. If your hatred for them is due to such a Jew displaying his disdain for the Jewish religion one must not only not love them but hate them as we have been told by David in Psalms 139,21 "You know I hate those who hate You, etc."

לא תקום, “do not take revenge;” your inability to conquer your anger would reflect poorly on your personality. G-d is able to suppress His desire to take vengeance, as we know from: נוקם ה' ובעל חימה, “The Lord passionate and able to take revenge but He controls His anger.” ולא תטור, “and do not nurse a grudge.” The Torah speaks of matters involving money. When it comes to physical harm experienced by the victim, he does not need to become conciliatory until the offending party has made the first move in that direction. Alternate interpretation: לא תקום, “do not act vengefullv: ולא תטור, and do not hold a grudge: i.e. in your mind. לא תקום, Rashi explains this by providing us with a parable: if someone had asked a neighbour to lend him his scythe, and had been refused, and on the day after that refusenik asked him to lend him his spade to dig with, the second person not only refusing but adding as a reason that he was refused the loan of the first person’s scythe, this is an example of revenge, i.e. לא תקום. What then is the meaning of לא תטור, “do not bear a grudge?” Answer: if the second person does lend his spade to the one who had refused him his scythe, but he added when giving him his spade: “I am not like you who refused me his scythe just yesterday.” The second person still feels vengeful even though he did not act vengefully. If you were to ask why it is that the Torah did not specifically forbid the first person to refuse to lend the second person his scythe, but referred with obvious displeasure to the second person who did lend his tool as having committed a violation of a commandment? Surely the Torah should have criticized the first person for being so miserly as not to lend his tool to his neighbour?We must give the first person the benefit of the doubt for refusing to lend his tool because he may have been afraid that his neighbour would treat his scythe, which he treasured greatly, carelessly, and that would explain his refusal. The Torah does not command us to lend our tools against our better judgment as to whom we entrust it. On the other hand, the second person made it clear that he bore the first person ill will for his refusal and he wanted to impress him as being a better person than his neighbour. Therefore the Torah commanded us to allow our goodwill towards our neighbor to outweigh our disappointment over his having refused us without giving an adequate explanation which would have been acceptable and which would have avoided any ill feeling between these two people. By practicing this kind of goodwill we would have contributed to making this a more peaceful world. .ואהבת לרעך כמוך, “if you (and everyone else) will practice this virtue you will contribute to peaceful relations between man and his fellow.” The prefix letter ל before the word רעך, “your fellowman,” is superfluous. Other examples of the Torah using such a letter ל as an unnecessary prefix can be found in Exodus 14,28: לכל חיל פרעה, “of the whole army of Pharaoh;” compare also Exodus 27,3: לכל כליו תעשה נחושת,” “all of its appurtenances you shall construct out of copper. An alternate interpretation: the Torah was careful not to write ואהבת רעך כמוך “love your fellowman as you love yourself,” as this is something impossible for human beings to do. It is however, possible to love things that belong to your fellow human being as much as you love the things that are your own. You are to put yourself mentally into the position of your fellow human being, and therefore not to do anything to him that you would not have others do to you. By the same token you should love as much to do favours for him as you would have others do favours for you. The same interpretation also applies to verse 34 in our chapter where we are asked to love the convert to Judaism כמוך, “just like yourself.”

You shall not take revenge nor bear a grudge against the children of your people. It does not say “your fellow” because revenge and grudge-bearing are evil traits in a person’s character, and it is not proper to seek revenge against any person who is from your people, whether good or bad. This is because presumably the revenge is for something done to you physically or financially, and these matters are not so precious and important that they are worthy of being avenged. However, it is permitted to take revenge against gentiles because they presumably want to make you transgress God’s commandments and lead you astray from the Lord your God, and this is an important and precious matter worthy of seeking revenge for, because it is called “God’s vengeance.” Therefore, it says here the children of your people to exclude gentiles who are not of your people, as it is said to execute vengeance upon the nations (Psalms 149:7) because it is God’s vengeance. And regarding this, our Sages of blessed memory said (Berakhot 33a): “Great is vengeance, for it is placed between two names of God, as it is said God of vengeance, O Lord (Psalms 94:1).” They pointed out that the beginning and end of vengeance should only be for the sake of God’s name, that is, when someone tries to lead you away from God’s commandments, for one who causes another to sin is worse than one who kills him, as Rashi explained on the verse You shall not abhor an Egyptian (Deuteronomy 23:8). And our Sages said that any Torah scholar who does not take revenge and bear a grudge like a snake is not a Torah scholar (Yoma 22b), and this is for the honor of God’s Torah which is within Him. But regarding all the events that happen to bodies, God did not want a person to seek revenge for them. This is comparable to a child who plays and does childish actions in building something or some other matter, and someone comes and ruins all his works that the child built and planted. The child cries out to his father with a great and bitter cry about this, and if his father were to pay attention to him and do his will, he would kill this person. However, his father does not pay any attention to his voice at all, because even though the child, according to his limited understanding, thinks that this person has done him great harm, nevertheless, the father sees with his intellect that this is not the case, and that all the child’s activities were vanities and foolish acts, and they are not worthy enough that because of them this person should be treated as an enemy deserving vengeance, for in truth, this person did nothing to him. Such is the relationship between our Father in heaven and His creatures, who, due to their limited comprehension of intellectual matters, think that all matters of this world have some aspect of value and perfection. And someone who affects their honor, body, or property appears to them to have done them great harm, and they cry out to their Father in heaven to avenge them. But sometimes the Holy One, blessed be He, does not pay attention to the sound of their cries when this harm does not involve an admixture of something that affects a person’s soul, because in the eyes of the Blessed One, all the matters that people accumulate in this world are exactly like the play and games that the child we mentioned made for himself. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, does not pay attention to them, except when, through physical events, one’s Torah study and observance of commandments are disrupted — then the vengeance becomes God’s vengeance. And on this matter is based the psalm, which begins God of vengeance, O Lord etc. (Psalms 94:1), first stating that one should not seek revenge except in matters that are God’s vengeance, as mentioned. Afterwards it says, How long shall the wicked, O Lord etc., until The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. The explanation of this matter is that it comes to quiet the complaints of those who say The Lord has forsaken the earth and decisively claim that surely The Lord does not see, nor does the God of Jacob understand all the deeds of the lowly ones. For how could He see the destruction of His homeland, the poor and oppressed, the widow, stranger, and orphan, and not take vengeance on evildoers? This must be because His providence does not extend to lowly matters. To this the psalmist responds, explaining that this is not so; rather, it is because the Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile, like a child at play, therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, is not strict with them at all times. This is the foundation of the entire psalm which says, How long shall the wicked, O Lord etc., after saying God of vengeance, O Lord. It challenges those who say, The Lord does not see etc. This is the meaning of They crush Your people, O Lord, and afflict Your heritage. They say, “The Lord does not see” etc., for otherwise, why would He not avenge us?To this he responds, Understand, you senseless among the people etc., He who formed the eye, shall He not see? etc. And if you ask, since He hears and sees, why does He not take vengeance, given that the Lord is a God of vengeance? To this he explains, The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. Although the events that happen to bodies seem significant in our eyes, in God’s eyes they are a doctrine of delusion (Jeremiah 10:8), like a child at play. And if you ask, why does the Lord see toil and anger, when the wicked surrounds the righteous? To this he responds, Blessed is the man whom You chastise, O Lord, and teach out of Your law, for whom the Lord loves, He chastises with suffering, but without causing neglect of Torah study, as our Sages learned from the verse, and teach out of Your law (Berakhot 5a). For if it resulted in neglect of Torah study, the Holy One, blessed be He, would take vengeance on those who cause its neglect. Therefore it is said, You shall not take vengeance etc., because all matters of this world are not important before the Blessed One, and it is as if nothing was done to him at all. Therefore, it is not proper to seek vengeance from any person who is of your people. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Our Sages said this is a great principle in the Torah. In the Talmud (Shabbat 31a), there is a story about a convert who said, “Teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot.” Hillel taught him the verse Love your neighbor as yourself — [explaining it as] “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. The rest is commentary; go and learn.”It appears that this convert was a sincere convert and was not mocking or joking when he asked to be taught the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Rather, he genuinely requested that all the commandments of the Torah be established for him on one foundation — that is, one “foot” upon which all the commandments could stand — so that he would not fall into forgetfulness, which is common for a convert who has not learned anything about the commandments of the Torah since his youth. Therefore, he asked for one principle that encompasses the entire Torah. Metaphorically he said “while I stand on one foot,” meaning he wanted something concise that could be stated quickly and briefly, which would also serve as a single foundation or “foot.” By remembering this principle, he would remember all of God’s commandments. And [Hillel] taught him the verse “Love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord.” As our Sages of blessed memory already said (Makkot 24a) that Habakkuk came and established all [commandments] on one [principle], as it is said, The righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4). This does not contradict the words of Hillel, because all the commandments of the Torah are of two types: The first is the commandments between man and the Omnipresent, blessed be He, and the foundation for all of them is faith in God. The second is the commandments between man and his fellow, and the foundation for all of them is the verse Love your neighbor as yourself. For this reason, the cherubim spread their wings upward, gesturing toward above, corresponding to the commandments between man and God, and their faces were toward each other, corresponding to the commandments between man and his fellow. When he [the convert] said here “on one leg,” he meant one foundation for each type, and therefore he [Hillel] told him the verse Love your neighbor as yourself, and on this foundation he established for him all the commandments between man and his fellow. But he also told him the end of the verse, I am the Lord, which is the foundation upon which Habakkuk established all the commandments of the Torah, namely faith in God. The statement I am the Lord is similar to the commandment I am [the Lord your God], which includes all the first commandments between man and the Omnipresent, blessed be He, and concludes with honoring one’s father and mother, because from the end of His word it is evident that the beginning of His word is true, since one can make a kal vachomer [a fortiori] argument from honoring father and mother to honoring the third Partner, blessed be His name, for Is He not your Father who created you? (Deuteronomy 32:6). And the commandment You shall not covet includes all five latter commandments, and it corresponds to Love your neighbor as yourself, for both encompass all the commandments between man and his fellow. And so said Rabbi Levi (Vayikra Rabbah 24:5): “The ten commandments are written in this portion,” and he concludes that the commandment You shall not covet corresponds to Love your neighbor as yourself — see there.

לא תקום, “Do not take revenge.” An example of revenge meant here is that if your neighbour refused to lend you any of his tools, and he turns to you some day asking you to lend him yours, you are not to justify your refusal to lend him your tools by saying that seeing he did not lend you his tools when you needed them, you now do not lend him yours either. Some people ask why the Torah criticizes the second party for his refusal to lend, without saying a word about the behaviour of the first party who had started the chain reaction by refusing to lend his tools in the first place? The answer given is that the first party, who obviously is a miser, while not acting as a good neighbour, had not violated a law as it says nowhere that one must lend one’s tools, however, he who basically is willing to lend his tools to neighbours, refuses to this neighbour only as an act of revenge. This is not tolerated. It is a negative virtue. His refusal stems from feelings of hatred. Some people answer the above question by saying that it is clear that the first one will be punished more harshly so that there is no need to spell this out, seeing he had started the chain of reciprocal unfriendliness. We have a tradition that the plague of tzoraat occurs, among other reasons, as retaliation for miserly conduct, withholding help from one’s neighbour being one such example.

לא תקם , repaying evil with evil. ולא תטר; not even in your heart, but train yourself to resist your natural impulse to get even. ואהבת לרעך כמוך, if he is truly your colleague, friend; however, if he is wicked you need not love him, as even G’d hates him as we know from Proverbs 8,13 יראת ה' שנאת רע, “to fear the Lord is to hate evil.” (compare Pessachim 113)

My statutes you shall observe: your animal you shall not crossbreed; your field you shall not sow with mixed kinds; and a garment of mixed kinds — sha'atnez — shall not come upon you.

חקתי תשמרו את YE SHALL KEEP MY ORDINANCES — These are they: “Thou shalt not cause two kinds of thy cattle to gender etc.”, (and the other ordinances laid down in this verse), for by the term חוקים are meant those enactments of the King for which no reason is given and those that precede are not of this character. ובגד כלאים NEITHER SHALL A GARMENT MINGLED OF LINEN AND WOOLLEN [COME UPON THEE] — Why is this statement made (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in Deuteronomy 22:21 which bears upon the same subject)? Because Scripture states there “Thou shalt not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together” I might think that one must not wear in combination wool (i. e. wool as it comes from the shearing) and combed flax! Scripture therefore states here “a garment (i. e. something made of a cloth) [mingled of woollen and linen shall not come upon thee]”, thus excluding loose pieces of wool and flax in combination, which do not form a בגד. Whence do we know that this prohibition extends to felt-stuff (which though not being really בגד, since the material is not worked up into cloth, is, however, made of wool and linen pressed into one material)? Because Scripture states in Deuteronomy “שעטנז shall not come upon thee” which means a material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together — (שעטנז is taken to be an abbreviation of these words) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 4 18). I say that נוז is an expression for material which is dried by rubbing between the fingers in order to extend it into threads, these being then twined together so that it forms a coherent web. This is called tistre in O. F. (cf. Rashi on Gittin 59a s. v. דבר הנמלל ונמתח). Similar is the expression to be found in the Talmud (Moed Katan 12b): חזין לגזאי דאית בהון, “The sesame-plant may be plucked on חולו של מועד because it is fit for use on account of the נזאי, the dried-up kernels which it contains” — which word, viz., נזאי, we explain to mean as much as “withering”, flestre in O. F.. Menachem explains שעטנו to denote a combination of wool and linen.

YE SHALL KEEP ‘CHUKOTHAI’ (MY STATUTES). “And these are they: thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, etc. Chukim (statutes) are the decrees of the King for which there is no reason [given].” This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have not mentioned that the reasons for the commandments [mentioned in this verse] are hidden from us, and that the evil inclination and the idolaters raise objections against them, except in [the case of the prohibition against] wearing a garment made of wool and linen, but not in the case of mating of animals of diverse kinds [for which there is a reason, as will be explained later on]. And the intention of the Rabbis [in defining “statutes” as the laws of the King for which there is no reason] was not that these are decrees of the King of kings for which there are no reasons whatever, for every word of G-d is tried. [They meant] only that “statutes” are like the enactments which a king promulgates for his kingdom, without revealing their benefits to the people, and the people, not sensing these reasons, entertain questions about them in their hearts but they accept them nonetheless out of fear of the government. Similarly, “the statutes” of the Holy One, blessed be He, are His secrets in the Torah, which the people by means of their thinking do not grasp as they do in the case of mishpatim [“ordinances” — laws which conform to the human conception of justice], but yet they all have a proper reason and perfect benefit. Now the reason for [the prohibitions against] kilayim [“mixed kinds,” as will be explained further on], is that G-d has created in the world various species among all living things, both plants and moving creatures, and He gave them a power of reproduction enabling them to exist forever as long, as He blessed be He, will desire the existence of the world, and He further endowed them with a power to bring forth [only] after their kind, and that they should never be changed, as it is said with reference to all of them [at the time of Creation], after its kind. This driving force in the normal mating of animals is for the sake of preserving the species, even as human beings engage in sexual activity for the sake of having children. Thus one who combines two different species, thereby changes and defies the work of Creation, as if he is thinking that the Holy One, blessed be He, has not completely perfected the world and he desires to help along in the creation of the world by adding to it new kinds of creatures. Moreover, the mating of diverse species of animals does not produce offspring, and even in the case of those that are by nature close to each other [such as the horse and the ass], from which offspring are born, such as mules, their seed is cut off, for they themselves [the mules] cannot produce offspring. Thus from the point of view of these two matters [i.e., the changing in the order of Creation and the sterility of the product, we see that] the act of combining different ...

The reason [Scripture] mentions after these commandments: "your animal you shall not crossbreed with a different kind" — to warn that, after you have been holy and do no violence to a fellow human being like yourself, you shall also not do violence to the animal by altering the work of God. Therefore it is written "My statutes you shall keep" — to keep each species from being mixed with another species. "Kilayim" — two kinds. I will yet explain the word kilayim further. The reason [for mentioning] the field and the garment is that they serve as a reminder, for there are many commandments that serve as reminders: the Festival of Matzot, Sukkot, tzitzit, shofar, mezuzah, and tefillin. And here I will hint to you a secret: know that the perfect [Torah] is perfect in every way — therefore it is written of Abraham, "he kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My teachings" (Genesis 26:5). "Shaʿatnez" — the translators said it is a composite of three words, or [derives from] a five-letter root; its meaning is "mixed"; it appears alone in Scripture.

One of the foremost ways in which to demonstrate our fear/reverence of the Lord is not by observing commandments which we find reasonable and useful, but by observing those commandments which we fail to understand, or worse, which run counter too what our intelligence dictates to our mind as being useful. Hence the Torah urges: את חוקותי תשמורו, you must make a special point of meticulously observing G’d’s statutes. The motivation for doing so must not be merely fear of punishment, but blanket recognition that “Father knows best,” that the fact it was G’d Who legislated these statutes proves that they are intelligent and beneficial for us even if we fail to understand this. It is interesting that the Torah enumerates examples of such chukkim in areas which have nothing to do with “religion” as such, but with the most mundane of our activities. Examples are: the efforts to produce better strains of domesticated animals, better strains of agricultural products, etc. In each of these situations, even though scientific research may lead us to conclusions other than the ones indicated by the Torah, we must ignore such results of our own research. [I am updating the wording of the author to make them more relevant to our century. Ed.] Clearly, He Who created this universe would not legislate something that would endanger its existence. What applies in the field of agriculture, our economic base, applies equally in the sexual mores we are to observe [including such matters as “cloning” Ed.] as well as our foods, [maybe outlawing certain kinds of additives, in addition to such matters as mixing milk and meat. Ed.] Even in such apparently unrelated matters as trying to divine the future, the Torah is on record with a variety of statutes limiting our methods of enquiry. All of these laws, of course, come under the heading of chukkim, statutes.

את חקותי תשמרו, בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, "You shall keep My statutes. Do not let your cattle mate with a different species of animal." Here is the way Torat Kohanim interprets this verse: "From the wording of the text I only know a prohibition concerning a domestic animal owned by one. How do I know that the same prohibition applies also to the domestic animals owned by one's neighbour? We derive this from the extraneous word את in the expression את חקרתי. If this is correct, why did the Torah use the suffix "your" altogether when describing the domestic animal? It could have written בהמה לא תרביע כלאים and saved both the word את as well as the possessive ending ך. I have seen a comment by the author of Korban Aharon explaining that the verse deals with a normal situation, i.e. an owner cross-mating his own animals. I do not believe that this is an adequate reason for the Torah phrasing the commandment in this fashion. I believe that the key to the verse is the fact that the Torah wrote this law immediately after the commandment to love fellow Israelites like ourselves. The message of that commandment is that G'd loves for Jews whose souls are all branches of the same pool of sanctity to behave accordingly towards each other. As a result we might think that G'd does not mind if those mammals which are fit for consumption by us, i.e. the בהמות טהורות, would intermate. The Torah tells us that this is against G'd's will. The ending ך in the word refers to the fact that these animals are yours to eat, not that they are owned by you. Torat Kohanim also writes that the verse as it stands forbids only the crossbreeding or mating of pure animals with other pure animals. Whence do I know that one must not crossbreed or mate impure animals with pure animals? Answer: This is why the Torah says את חקותי תשמרו. This shows you quite clearly that the author had understood the word בהמתך to mean pure animals as opposed to animals which are your own. If the Torah had not written the suffix ך, I would not have known that the subject are pure animals at all, but would have assumed that inasmuch as the pure animals are fit to eat, mating between pure animals would be permissible as opposed to mating between impure and pure species.

את חקותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My statutes;” previously when the Torah commenced a paragraph with this introduction, what followed were the laws about family purity, chastity, incest etc. (18,5) Now it introduces laws of a similar nature applying to different categories of vegetation, and their derivatives, i.e. mixing wool and linen. Fruitbearing trees must not have branches of other types of fruit grafted on to their trunks. בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, “you must not try to crossbreed different categories of mammals.” After the Torah had warned us to be holy, i.e. [not to forcibly violate natural norms, as well] as not to violate personal freedom of your fellowman by violence, now the Torah expands the subject matter to include the animal kingdom. In other words, we are not to tamper with what the Creator had seen fit to create as a separate species, i.e. למינו, למינה, למיניהם, “according to their respective species.” ובגד כלאים, “and a garment made of two kinds of fabrics mixed together;” according to some commentators (B’chor Shor) the reason behind this prohibition is to distinguish the garments worn by the priests from those worn by ordinary Israelites, the priests having been specifically ordered to wear some garments containing a mixture of wool and linen (as mentioned already in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 4. It is stated there that the word שש in the Torah refers to a type of linen, whereas the word תכלת refers to wool dyed blue). We find something similar with regard to the prohibition of certain fat parts offered on the altar, and all kinds of blood, as well as the oil used for anointing the kings of the house of David, or incense in certain proportions; all of the aforementioned are for the exclusive use in the service of the Lord by the priests. Anyone making personal use of them is as guilty of severe trespass as someone making personal use of the King’s scepter.

את חקותי תשמורו, “observe My statutes!” What are these “statutes” the Torah speaks of here? They are primarily such laws as: “you must not mate your animal into another species, and you shall not plant your field with mixed seed, and a garment of a mixture of wool and flax fibres shall not come upon you.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for these prohibitions is that all the things G’d created be they living creatures or merely vegetable matter each have their own mazzal, or representative in the celestial regions; each species was created as such, a principle underlying the whole creative process, where again and again G’d speaks of their being למיניהם, “according to their species.” Anyone who mixes species contravenes the expressed wish of the Lord. It is as if he denied the fact that the universe and all there is in it was created by the directives of the Lord. It is tantamount to expressing the view that G’d did not know how to best exploit the potential of the species He created. Adding new species through grafting is like second-guessing G’d. The prohibition of using both a donkey and an ox to pull a ploughshare simultaneously is another law based on the same type of consideration. The farmers usually bring the team of animals which ploughed into the same stable thus leading them to mating with each other. If they were to produce offspring constituting a new species this would contravene G’d’s laws on maintaining the purity of the respective species. A Midrashic approach: based on Tanchuma Shelach 15: The words: “do not seed your field using a mixture of species of seed,” represents the verse ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר, “The Lord desires His (servant’s) vindication, that He may magnify and glorify (His) teaching” (Isaiah 42,21). This means that there is no major area of life which has not been regulated by the Torah’s issuing commandments in order for the Jewish people to earn the right to a brilliant future after death due to their having fulfilled all these commandments. Our lives have been regulated concerning ploughing, seeding, harvesting, weaving fibres and even wearing mixtures of clothing containing certain mixtures of fibres. We are not allowed to eat all kinds of animals, etc., etc. By observing all these laws we truly “blanket” all our activities so that they represent obedience to G’d’s commandments. According to a kabbalistic approach, the legislation which is part of the group known as chukkim is an example of something not only related to matters physical, terrestrial, and this is why G’d speaks of חקות שמים, “laws of heaven” (Job 38,33). Statutes which are known as “laws of heaven” have been addressed only to the people of Israel. The psalmist speaks of: “His statutes and laws to Israel” (Psalms 147,19), and in psalm 81,4 he speaks of: “for it is a statute for Israel.” In other words, just as every species on earth has been assigned by G’d its specific function, so in the celestial regions too each category of angel, etc., has been assigned its specific function. These functions include insuring that terrestrial earth is supplied with the celestial input enabling it to function optimally. We know that the concept of peace and harmony is as important in the celestial spheres as it is on earth as we have been told in Job 28,2 that G’d makes peace in the heavenly regions as well as on earth. In other words, contrary to what we may think “peace” in the heavenly domains is not a given, something inviolate, but it may have to be restored from time to time having been fractured. When the beings in those heavenly regions each carry out their assigned tasks there is “peace.” In short, when these celestial forces stick to their assigned tasks, i.e. do not overlap with one another, all is well in heaven. Similarly, we on earth must refrain from mixing species that should not be mixed so as to maintain peace and harmony in the celestial regions. Anyone producing “bastard” species destroys the balance in the celestial regions also. The meaning of the word כלאים is “restraining something, denying something.” It means restraining existing powers from exercising their functions. One verse which expresses this idea is the prayer לא תכלא רחמיך ממני, where David asks G’d: “do not withhold Your compassion from me” (Psalms 40,12). Another occasion when this word appears in that form is in Jeremiah 37,18: בית הכלא, “a house of detention,” a jail where one‘s movements are restricted. Anyone placed in such a jail is unable to pursue the functions assigned to him. By the same token the word חקים is derived also from חקיקה, “engraving,” i.e. making a visual image of abstract concepts. When someone mates two different species of animals, i.e. מין בשאינו מינו, or he plants two different species of plants closely together so that both feed upon each other this is equivalent to mixing two separate celestial forces together which each provide that species with the ability to reproduce, i.e. which instruct that species to reproduce itself. This is what is meant when the sages said (Bereshit Rabbah 10,7) “there is no herb on earth in the terrestrial universe which does not have a patron in the celestial spheres which encourages it to reproduce.” The Midrash bases this on Job 38,33: “do you know how the laws of heaven work, can you impose its authority on earth?” Seeing that the first two human beings who were born on earth were of different species, (Kayin and Hevel), one being the result of the evil genes of the serpent, the other that of Adam’s divinely inspired spirit, and we are commanded to keep our distance from the spirit of impurity, mixing the species has been forbidden for us as we have learned the fatal consequences which this could have. Basically, mixing species is mating opposites. It does not take superior wisdom to realise that this is likely to have devastating consequences. Whoever makes a point of separating or keeping different species apart contributes to peace and harmony on earth. Conversely, he who joins opposites, i.e. different species drives peace and harmony further away from earth. The reason is also that by doing so, one causes friction in the celestial regions from where separate input to the different species on earth originated in order to promote the continued existence of these species. כלאים, mixing species, has been forbidden on three different levels: 1) Different animals must not be mated with one another (regardless of whether biologically such mating could produce offspring). 2) Plants must not be mixed (planting seed together or grafting branches on to tree trunks). 3) certain clothing, i.e. flax and sheep’s wool must not be woven together and worn, stitched together and worn or serve as sheets, pillows, etc. The reason that regardless of outcome animals must not be mated together is because animals mate much in the same way as humans. Plants must not be mixed together at the point of planting or grafting as the woman of the human species is compared to the field (i.e. it receives input of seed passively). The reason that the mixing of the two fibres flax (linen) with lamb’s wool is prohibited is that Kayin offered flax as his offering to the Lord and Hevel offered sheep, i.e. wool. Seeing Kayin’s offering was rejected this was a hint that these two species were not fit to be mixed with one another. (compare Tanchuma Bereshit 9). The fact that Kayin murdered his brother is seen as a warning that they could not have been full brothers genetically speaking. Hence the Torah’s prohibition of mixing flax and wool is a warning that genetic incompatibility is fraught with extreme danger. Seeing that it is Israel’s task to be a holy nation we must not do anything which would undermine accomplishing our task. When the Torah chose the wording לא יעלה עליך, “it must not ascend on you,” as the way it describes the prohibition not to wear garments containing a mixture of wool and linen, this wording alludes to the spirit of impurity which the wearer is not to “put upon his person” when he wears such a garment. [The wording reflects that of the Zohar Kedoshim 86,2]. This leaves us with the question why the Torah not only permitted but commanded the mixture of these two fibres when it ordered that the blue tzitit (fringe) of the four strings of fringes be made of wool even if the bulk of the garment it is attached to is made of linen (Yevamot 4). [The word תכלת does not only mean a certain shade of blue, it means wool dyed this shade of blue. Ed.] The garments of the priests contained mixtures of wool and linen as a matter of routine, especially the ones worn when they performed the service in the Tabernacle (Kilayim 9,1). In fact this is the mystical dimension of Solomon describing the ideal wife/mother weaving wool and linen in Proverbs 31,13. According to that mystical dimension, the words in that verse, i.e. “she seeks wool and flax, and works with her hands willingly,” reflect the mystique of the entire poem Solomon composed here about such a woman. When the entire orientation of a person is to fulfill the will of the Creator, as is the orientation of the eyshet chayil described by Solomon, then, and only then, joining these symbolically diverse characteristics is permitted or even commanded. It is the task of man to sublimate the “evil” influences in our universe, to place them directly into the service of the Lord. The eyshet chayil is so named because this is what she does. Performing service in the Tabernacle is designed to achieve optimal sanctity on earth, i.e. to sublimate impurity. The blue wool thread on the tzitit is the reminder of the task of each one of us to make earth such a place where all evil has been sublimated, has been rehabilitated. Whatever goes on in the terrestrial Temple on earth reflects what goes in its counterpart in the celestial spheres.

בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, “You must not mate your animal with another species.” Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah links the laws of not interbreeding species and the encouragement to become holy in order to make the point that after you have become a holy nation you must not commit violent acts against any person sharing your beliefs, and you must not even forcefully interfere with the animals’ natural way of behaviour which is, after all, the way they have been programmed to behave by the Creator. Animals are more loyal to the rules laid down for His creatures than man is. Rashi writes that the prohibition against cross breeding must be seen as a Divine decree, G’d did not see fit to give us His reasons. Nachmanides writes that the sages did not write anywhere that the underlying reasons for this legislation have been deliberately hidden, giving the evil urge and the gentiles a chance to ridicule and undermine our faith in the Creator. Whereas such an argument is true with respect to the prohibition to mix wool and linen, [but not other fibers, Ed.] the reason for not mixing different seeds in a vineyard, or not crossbreeding species of animals are not at all a challenge to [test of, Ed.] our faith. On the one hand, all G’d’s laws, [especially those regulating our conduct vis a vis Him seeing that they emanate from a higher intelligence, are of a kind whose true intent we are unable to fathom, Ed.] are beyond our ability to fully comprehend, as opposed to the laws governing inter-personal relations which we are expected to try and understand. However, we are encouraged in many instances to examine some aspects of how the חוקים are beneficial to our successful existence on this earth. We must not make observance of these laws conditional on our understanding their usefulness. There appears to be a perfectly rational reason for the legislation of forbidding crossbreeding, both of animals and plants. The Creator enabled each species to perpetuate itself by planting its seed in the appropriate counterpart. Crossbreeding, in the vast majority of cases, would foil the Creator’s plan, and such species would die out, as their seed would not produce any issue or issue that was capable of sustaining itself. G’d provided the seed to these creatures in order to enable His universe to endure as planned. Any activity that puts the Creator’s intent at risk, is therefore forbidden, is an act of insurrection if persisted in. This is the reason why already at the time of reporting creation, the Torah stresses again and again the words למינו and למיניהם, “according to its species,” or “according to their species.” He who interferes with this obviously finds fault with the Creator, implicitly criticizes Him. G’d does not need His creatures’ help in perfecting His universe, He is content if His creatures do not ruin it. We know from experience that even if apparently well matched human beings mate with one another, especially those forbidden under the rules of incest, any children from such unions are liable to intensify genetic defects which no human being is totally without. In other words, not only do totally different species not reproduce when crossbred, but, even members of the same species fail to reproduce satisfactorily if the rules of the Torah are not followed. Who would know best what is good for us if not He Who had created us? When the Torah enlarges this prohibition by writing שדך לא תזרע כלאים, “you must not scatter more than one type of seed in your field,” it includes even relatively simple plants in its regulations. Our sages expressed their conviction that violating this commandment will be found detrimental to the farmer’s interest, even if he thought that he would benefit through such a stratagem. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 10,7) have illustrated their approach to the whole subject when they told us that there is not a single species of plant which does not have its own mazzal, i.e protective guardian angel appointed in the heavens. Clearly, such a statement refers only to species created by G’d, not to new species created by man. Such species are without any heavenly protection. ובגד כלאים שעטנז, “and a garment consisting of a mixture of lamb’s wool fibers and linen fibers, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for this prohibition – which singles out wearing a garment made of such mixture, not the making of the mixture- is that we must learn to keep our distance from species that have been mixed. And Maimonides write in "The Guide of the Perplexed" that the reason for the שעטנז prohibition is because at that time there was a well-known garment of the sorcerers with whom they did all their actions and he said that he found it written in their books and according to it - it was a great matter and very desirable for them to do their evil deeds for their forbidden worship so the Torah kept it away from anyone because the Torah wants to extinguish their deeds and annihilate their memory. What Rashi brought a verse to forbid alone is only a reference, for the Torah did not forbid unless the wool and linen are each alone, material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together i.e. woven and then two times, and therefore it was necessary to allow Kilayim in Tzitzit and unlike Rashi, who interpreted that it is not considered Kilayim until the linen and wool are intertwined with each other, otherwise Kilayim should not be allowed in Tzitzit, however in each material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together it is considered Kilayim even if it is not a garment such as weaving threads and making a belt out of them (Mishnah Kilayim 9:1). And fabrics that are not but calendered (pressed, שוע) [, or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז)] alone are not forbidden from the Torah but from Rabbinical decree (Nida 61b) although it is each one by itself - or material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טוי) or twisted (נוז) together:

בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, according to accepted norms and even the view of the heretics, just as the Torah commanded the earth and the creatures to reproduce only their own species (Genesis 1,11 and 1,21 as well as 1,24) so the Torah commands us when pursuing the task of tilling the earth to follow the same principles. This is also required regarding not mixing flax and wool, seeing the former is a product of the earth whereas the latter is a product of the animal kingdom, a higher form of creation. To the heretics who deny this principle, questioning that if true why are only lambs’ wool and flax prohibited to be mixed, whereas other forms of animal based wool are allowed to be mixed with flax, I say that the prohibition is due to mixing natural coloured materials such as white and dyed materials. The Torah considers mixing coloured fabrics with fabrics in their natural state as forbidden, quoting lamb’s wool and flax (linen) as the most popular example of such mixes. The heretics I spoke with accepted my argument.

And if a man lies with a woman carnally, and she is a bondwoman designated for another man, and she has not been redeemed by money nor has freedom been granted to her by deed, there shall be an inquiry; they shall not be put to death, for she had not been freed.

נחרפת לאיש [AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A HANDMAID] GIVEN OVER TO A MAN — נחרפת signifies: destined and designated to a man. I do not know of any similar use of it (the root חרף) in Scripture. — And it is of a Canaanitish handmaid who is partly a שפחה and partly a free-woman and who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant who is permitted to marry a שפחה, that Scripture is here speaking (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 2; Keritot 11a). והפדה לא נפדתה means, she is redeemed (הפדה) and not redeemed (לא נפדתה) (i. c. she is partly redeemed, but not fully redeemed; cf. Keritot 11a). An expression derived from the verb פדה, unless it be more closely defined, means redemption by money. או חפשה NOR FREEDOM [WAS GIVEN HER] through a document of release (שטר שחרור) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 3). בקרת תהיה INVESTIGATION SHALL BE MADE CONCERNING HER — she shall be punished with lashes but not he. It is for the court to investigate the matter (to discover that she is really not free) so that they should not make her liable to death (which would be the punishment of a free woman who committed adultery), כי לא חפשה BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE and her marriage with the Hebrew slave was no marriage. Our Rabbis, however, (taking the word בקרת as though it were בקריאת “by reading”) learned from here that whoever is subject to lashes (the מלקות punishment) shall be subject to the recitation (קריאה) of Biblical verses — that the judges who pronounce the sentence of lashes shall recite, whilst standing by him who is lashed the verses (Deuteronomy 28:58, 59): "If thou wilt not observe to do [all the words of the law] etc… Then the Lord will distinguish thy plagues (מכותך which also implies thy "lashes") etc." (cf. Keritot 11a) כי לא חופשה BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE therefore he, also, is not liable to death because of her, since her marriage was no marriage. It follows therefore that if she were free her marriage would have been a marriage and he would be liable to the death penalty (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 5).

AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A BONDMAID, ‘NECHEREPHETH’ FOR A MAN — “‘Destined’ for a man. I know not of a similar usage of this root [choraph] in Scripture.” This is Rashi’s language. It appears to me that it is associated with the expression, as I was in the days of ‘chorpi,’ meaning, in the days of my youth. Similarly, my heart shall not ‘yecheraph’ me so long as I live, meaning that I will not have the heart of a youth [who has not yet matured in wisdom]. The days of youth are called “the days of choreph” [a term which means “winter”], since the winter is at the beginning of the year, while the days of old age correspond to the summer which are the days of gathering in. Scripture, then, is stating here that she is a bondmaid, a young girl designated for a certain man, for a concubine who ministers to a man and with whom she has sexual relations, is called “his maiden,” just as every ministering person is also called [the master’s] lad. It is very common in the language of the Sages to say of a woman who has sexual relations with a man, that she is “an attendant to him.” And it is this [relationship that is here called] necherepheth, meaning that she has become a maiden [— attendant] to a man, and is known to him, called in the vernacular [i.e., in Spanish] mancipada (designated to a man). In the language of the Sages likewise we find the expression: “that slave’s girl” [assigned to him by his master]. Thus the meaning thereof is that she is not completely as his wife, but he has betrothed her and she is to him a maiden-attendant. BIKORETH’ (AN INVESTIGATION) SHALL BE MADE. “It is for the court to investigate the matter in order not to make him liable to death [that is to say, if she were a free woman betrothed to a man, and she had committed adultery, the punishment would be death, but this is not the case in this instance]. BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE, and her betrothal was not complete.” This is Rashi’s language, and so did all the commentators interpret the verse. And if so, Scripture then is warning the court to make this investigation because she is like a married woman, and they might [easily] make a mistake [in deciding his punishment]. But their interpretation does not please me, for it is a fact that is self-understood that the matter will be investigated, and that the court will not kill a person in vain. For they do such an investigation in all cases involving the death penalty!Now it is my opinion that this [word bikoreth] is a unique one in Scripture, but it is a common term in the Aramaic language and in the expressions of our Rabbis, namely, the word hefkeir [“ownerless” — with the letter beth in bikoreth and the letter fei in hefkeir interchanging]. For the word is essentially hevkeir [with the letter veth, which is equivalent to the beth in bikoreth], just as the Rabbis have said [in a Mishnah]: “The School of Shammai say: Hevkeir [produce that is proclaimed ownerless] for the benefit of the poor [only], ...

"And she is a bondwoman" — the disputants say she is not Jewish. The correct plain-sense interpretation is that she is the one mentioned in the passage "when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant" (Exodus 21:7) — she is an Israelite, and the sense is that he designated her [for marriage], that her master or his son would take her, but she is not yet betrothed; and this is the meaning of "for she was not freed" — she is not free until she is betrothed in the manner appropriate for daughters [of Israel]. The word "neḥerefet" — in the view of many, [it means] "designated" [yeʿudah]. In my view, the word derives from ḥerpah ["disgrace"], because she is a bondwoman and she is a virgin under the authority of another and is not betrothed. "And the redemption" [veha-pidyah] — this is the infinitive of the binyan whose agent is not named [i.e., the passive/reflexive], from the intensive conjugation; the meaning is that her father or one of her family had not redeemed her before she came of age. "Or freed" [o ḥufshah] — the shureq stands in place of the ḥataf-qamatz, for the one [form] is ḥofesh; the meaning is that it was customary to write her a bill of manumission if the father sold her for a fixed term. The translators said that half of her is free and half is a bondmaid — and that is the truth. "Biqqoret tihyeh" — some say its meaning is like that of a concubine [pilegesh], and they cited "among your precious ones" [bi-yeqarotekha] (Psalm 45:10); but they did not interpret correctly, for "bi-yeqarotekha" means "the precious maidservants," with the yod hidden because of the service-letter in ḥireq, and the ḥireq is present because of the conjunction of two moving shewas, the first under the service-letter and the second under the first letter of the root in the feminine form — and the language has no capacity to express [such a form] [otherwise]; such is the rule of the entire language. There is no unusual word [in Scripture] except for "verabim mi-yishenei admat ʿafar yeqitzu" in the reading of Ben Naftali. Others say "biqqoret" derives from the same root as "the priest shall not inspect [yevaqqer]" (Leviticus 27:33), and the meaning is that the matter is to be investigated. The translators said that he receives lashes with a leather strap [retsuʿat baqqar], and this is true as received tradition; the word [in the verse] is [merely] a mnemonic support [asmakhta]. The reason this passage is mentioned here is because he is oppressing the master of the bondwoman; therefore he brings a ram as a guilt offering — and further, by way of homiletical interpretation [derash], this [illicit] lying is like kilayim: a free man with a bondwoman.

It is a fact that most of the statutes listed appear to forbid only things which appear opposed to what we are familiar with as “laws of nature.” The prominent exception to this is the legislation involving the שפחה הנחרפת לאיש. Surely, the fact that the male partner does not become subject to the penalty of 39 strokes whereas the female partner does, appears hard to understand and to reconcile with what logic dictates. Furthermore, the fact that the male partner in the sin is required to offer a guilt offering, איל אשם, although he committed the sin knowingly, seems completely at variance with what we know about the function of such offerings. Nonetheless, the Torah herself provides a partial answer to this unusual legislation by writing כי לא חופשה, his sin is viewed as somewhat less serious seeing that she had not been legally capable of entering a binding marriage, the requisite financial token signifying her betrothal to the man being legally meaningless as she could not “own” anything, still being enslaved to one of her former masters. His principal sin consists of desecrating the institution of marriage, a Divine institution, hence a desecration of G’d’s name when ignored. Engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman who is still partially a slave is a form of practicing promiscuity. [my words. Ed.] The scenario described by the Torah denigrates in the first instance the dignity of the active partner, the male, not that of the passive partner the female. It is most likely, that she, the “passive” partner had seduced him and is therefore deserving of the penalty decreed for her by the Torah. The deliberate nature of the sin, as far as the male is concerned, is the fact that he knowingly demeaned himself. This makes it akin to an inadvertent sin, qualifying for the guilt offering decreed.

ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “and any man who lies carnally with a woman who is a bondmaid, etc.” Rabbi Elazar, son of Azaryah, says that seeing that all the various forbidden categories of carnal unions have already been recorded, we must conclude that here we deal with a woman whose legal status is subject to doubt, i.e. a woman owned by two masters jointly, only one of them has already released her into freedom. (Sifra) נחרפת, betrothed, i.e. promised, to a man (as soon as she will have been released by her other owner) This status can be compared to Job, 29,4 בימי חרפי, “when I was in my prime, i.e. in a transitory stage. An alternate interpretation: the word נחרפת means something similar to מופקרת, “abandoned;” Compare Judges 5,18: עם חרף נפשו, “a people left at the threshold of death.” חופשה, “freed;” the letter ה at the end is weak, (without adot, ) בקורת תהיה, an expression describing examination due to suspicion; the examination is designed to find a legal reason not to sentence her to death, as Rashi explained.

בקרת תהיה, “there shall be an investigation.” The court has to investigate the matter and clarify the circumstances in order to prevent an execution of the participant or participants as would be the case in a clear case of adultery involving a fully fledged Jewess. In this instance, though her betrothal corresponded to Jewish norms, she is nonetheless not yet fully Jewish and as such her sin is not subject to the death penalty. כי לא חפשה, “for she had not been totally set free.” In other words, as long as this woman was not totally free her status was not yet that of a full wife to the Jew who married her. Whereas she was out of bounds to everyone else, she was not yet her husband’s either. This unusual status is also reflected in the choice of the word בקר by the Torah. “Morning” is the time when everything becomes quite clear. The word ערב, evening, is the opposite, a time when things become unclear, confused. Our sages (Keritot 11) interpret the words בקרת תהיה to mean תהא בקראי, “she (not he) will be subject to lashes;” had the Torah written בקרת תהיו the penalty of lashes would apply to both the male and the female partner in that incidence. One of the reasons is that the male has already become subject to a guilt-offering as the Torah writes in verse 22. This guilt-offering is referred to in Zevachim 54 as the אשם שפחה חרופה, “the guilt-offering on account of sleeping with a slave-woman who has been partially freed.” Seeing that the woman in question was not a partner to that sacrifice, she is subjected to 39 lashes. It has been explained in the name of Rav Saadiah Gaon that the word בקר, with the vowel pattern kametz, kametz, means bakar, cattle; the lashes administered are made of calf-hide. It is also possible that the letter ב in the word בקרת is used instead of the letter פ to hint that the status of the woman is one of הפקר, “she was ownerless, no one had authority over her, not her former master nor her not truly wedded husband.” This is why she does escape the death penalty. However, she is guilty of the penalty of lashes for her unchaste conduct.

ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “If a man lies carnally with a woman, etc.” the reason why this verse follows the subject of forbidden mixtures of species is that lying carnally with a woman not one’s wife is another type of mixing forbidden species with one another. והיא שפחה נחרפת לאיש, “she being a servant woman (gentile slave) designated for an Israelite man, etc.” The term נחרפת is subject to different interpretations, as is the status of the woman in question. [I am providing some background here not found in the author’s commentary, seeing the author concentrates more on the linguistic meaning of the word: נחרפת Ed.] According to some opinions, Rashi included, the woman is not originally Jewish, but on the way to being freed, which by itself is possible only if she converts to Judaism. At the time this intercourse occurs, apparently she is half slave, having been owned jointly by two masters, one of whom had not yet released her. She had been promised as a wife to a Hebrew slave (servant). Such a Hebrew servant, at the instruction of his master, would legally be allowed to sleep with her even while she had not begun any process of conversion. Some see in the word a comparison to זבולון, compare Judges 5.18 זבלון עם חרף נפשו למות, “Zevulun, a tribe that defied and risked death.” Zevulun’s chancing death at Devorah’s command is similar to this slave in our verse surrendering to a man’s advances. Nachmanides sees the word as related to חרפי, as in Job 29,4 כאשר הייתי בימי חרפי, “when I was still in my early youth.” The days of נעורים, adolescence, are compared to חורף, winter, seeing they are the beginning of the season, before summer, whereas the time of old age זקנה are considered as again as such as the summer of one’s life is already past and one approaches “winter.” Accordingly, the meaning of our verse is that the שפחה described here is a woman designated as a concubine, someone frequently described as נערה, i.e. “a wife of a junior status.” At any rate, the woman in question is not totally a married woman as yet. Ibn Ezra writes that the word is related to חרפה, inferior status, a woman who is not yet exclusively betrothed to a specific man seeing she is still a slave. She is however, still a virgin at the time the man in our verse sleeps with her. בקורת תהיה, “there shall be an investigation.” According to Rashi it is up to the court to determine the status, as the woman is not guilty of the death penalty. [She would be if she were a married woman and had consented to infidelity. Ed.] Some interpret the need for this investigation as resulting from the fact that to many onlookers this woman does have the status of a married woman, so that some people would be in a hurry to put her to death. In order to prevent such a miscarriage of justice, the Torah orders an investigation. The word בקרת is related to the word יבקר in Leviticus 13,36 where the Torah declares an investigation by the priest as uncalled for, writing לא יבקר הכהן. Still other scholars see in the word בקרת the word בקר when it is used in the sense of administering physical punishments with a strap. Nachmanides views the words as indicating הפקרות, that the woman in question due to her dubious status was considered הפקר in the sense of unprotected by law. According to Nachmanides we encounter the expression הבקר in the Mishnah, when it always means the same as הפקר with the letter פ instead of the letter ב. (compare Peyah 6.1 et al) Still others consider the word as similar to פילגש, concubine, quoting Psalms 45,10 בנות מלכים ביקרותיך, “Royal princesses are your favorites.” Ibn Ezra categorically rejects this saying that on the contrary, the meaning of the word in Psalms is from יקר, the especially highly regarded ones. In other words, princesses who elsewhere are highly esteemed will be become lowly slave women for the Jewish people [remember Hagar who voluntarily became the slave of Sarah. Ed.] כי לא חופשה, “for she had not yet been set free completely.” She was not yet able to become the legal wife of the man designated for her. Nonetheless, the man who had slept with her has to bring a guilt offering as spelled out in verse 22.

נחרפת, exclusively assigned to a Hebrew servant, as we know from Exodus 21,4: “if his master will give him a wife.” An expression parallel to the wordנחרפת occurs in Judges 5,18 עם חרף נפשו למות, “a people that mocked at death.” It means there that Dan dedicated its life utterly. [a wife dedicates her life utterly to her husband. Ed.] Onkelos also understands the word as meaning that this woman is exclusive to the man mentioned in our verse. לא נפדתה, on the one hand she has not been released from her vows, on the other hand she is not a true wife whose penalty would be death by strangulation. בקורת תהיה, similar to Leviticus 13,36 לא יבקר הכהן, “the priest need not examine it.” In our verse the word there means “an indemnity,” (compensatory penalty payable,). according to Dugash) According to Menachem, the word refers to a legal examination to determine exactly what happened and to assess the guilt. If she had not been released from servitude the court will not condemn her as a wife who committed adultery.

And he shall bring his guilt offering before Hashem to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting: a ram for a guilt offering.

איל אשם, “a ram for a guilt-offering.” We have had this expression already in Leviticus 5,18. Our sages use this similarity of expression, g’zeyra shaveh to say that the value of that ram in both instances is to be the same, two shekels.(On verse 19 in that chapter our author speaks of a two-year old ram, not of its value in shekels. Rabbi Chavell)

And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before Hashem for the sin that he sinned, and it shall be forgiven him for the sin that he sinned.

ונסלח לו מחטאתו אשר חטא AND THE SIN WHICH HE HATH SINNED SHALL BE FORGIVEN HIM — [The words מחטאתו אשר חטא appear to be redundant after the statement על חטאתו אשר חטא immediately preceding them, but they are intended] to include the willful sinner just as well as him who acts unintentionally amongst those who must bring this offering (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 7; Keritot 9a).

"And he shall be forgiven" — I will explain this further [elsewhere].

And when you come into the land and plant any tree for food, you shall treat its fruit as forbidden; for three years it shall be forbidden to you, set aside — it shall not be eaten.

וערלתם ערלתו את פריו meant lit., ye shall close its closing (regard it as enclosed): the meaning being that it shall be, as it were, closed up and barred so that no benefit may be derived from it. שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים THREE YEARS IT SHALL BE AS UNCIRCUMCISED UNTO YOU — From when does one count its three years? From the time of its (the tree's) being planted (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 3 3). One might think that if one has laid it (the fruit) by during these three years it shall become permitted for use after the three years, Scripture therefore states, יהיה which implies it shall remain in its former state of being (forbidden as it was during the entire three years).

VA’ARALTEM ORLATHO’ THE FRUIT THEREOF. “[This means literally]: ‘ye shall close its closing,’ meaning that it shall be closed up and hidden so as not to have any benefit from it.” This is Rashi’s language, and he has explained it well. And if so, ‘erel’ of heart means “closed of heart,” just as it is said, and I will rend the enclosure of their heart. Similarly, ‘areila’ is their ear means “their ear is closed and dulled so that no sound enters therein.” And ‘aral’ of the lips means “closed of lips,” for defective speech is a result of an impediment and obstruction in the veins of the tongue, or sometimes in those of the lips, which have not been properly opened. Speech is referred to in Scripture by the term “opening,” thus: Open thy mouth for the dumb [which means, “speak up in the cause of the dumb”]; Job opened his mouth; and the opening of my lips shall be right things; keep the doors [literally: “openings”] of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. Now Scripture uses the expression “closing up” with reference to the fruit of the first three years, so as to prohibit the deriving of any benefit from it, although it does not express it in this way with reference to other things from which we are also forbidden to derive any benefit [e.g., diverse kinds in a vineyard]. This is because the appearance of the fruit in its earliest stage is called “opening,” just as it is said, the vine-blossom has opened. Therefore He said, three years shall it be ‘areilim’ unto you, as if the fruits are closed up in the trees, and have not put forth buds nor opened blossoms. The reason for this commandment is to honor the Eternal with the first of all our produce of the fruits of the tree and the increase of the vineyard, and that we are not to eat of them until we bring all the fruit of one year [i.e., the fourth year after the planting] for giving praise unto the Eternal. Now the fruit of the first three years is not fit to be brought before the Glorious Name because it is small; neither does the tree in its first three years impart good taste or flavor into its fruit. Besides, most trees do not bring forth fruit at all until the fourth year. Therefore we are to wait with all of them [an equal period of time], and are not to taste of their fruit until we have brought of the planting which we have done, all its first good fruit to be holy before G-d, and there [in Jerusalem] we are to eat it and praise the Name of the Eternal. Thus this commandment is like that of the first-fruits. It is furthermore true that the fruit which comes forth from the tree when it is first planted, contains an abundance of moisture which attaches to and is harmful to the body and it is not good to eat it, just like a fish which has no scales and all food, forbidden by the Torah, which are harmful also to the body. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] also gave in the Moreh Nebuchim the same type of reason for this commandment as he gave for most of these commandments, namely, that the...

The reason [Scripture] mentions "the uncircumcision of the fruit" — because it mentioned the seed of the field and the seed of the woman [who is] like the earth; it therefore also mentions what is planted. And it is known that fruit that comes [before] three years is of no benefit, and is as harmful as any fish that has no fin and scales harms the body, and as the flesh of any bird of prey harms the wise soul, along with impure animals — and one who is discerning will understand. The meaning of "and you shall count its uncircumcision [ve-ʿaraltem ʿorlato]" — that that fruit is considered as a foreskin [ʿarlah], which harms and brings no benefit, like the foreskin of the lip, the ear, and of the flesh. The meaning of "ve-ʿaraltem" — that it shall be regarded in your eyes as something of the foreskin. It is also rendered well in Aramaic: "it shall be uncircumcised before you" — which explains "ve-ʿaraltem."

וכי תבאו אל הארץ, "and when you arrive in the country, etc." This verse contains three commandments. 1) The arrival in the land of our ancestors. We understand this in accordance with Ketuvot 110 that הכל מעלין לארץ ישראל, a father may force all the members of his household to migrate to the land of Israel as opposed to leaving the land of Israel. 2) One must plant fruit-bearing trees in order to enhance the stature of the land. 3) One has to observe the years of ערלה before one is entitled to eat or use the fruit of these trees. The introduction of the verse with the letter ו at the beginning of this paragraph indicates that one's migration to the land of Israel should not be motivated purely by self-gratification but it should be accompanied by a love for the land G'd has given us as an inheritance, the land G'd has chosen for His name to dwell in. Mount Zion bears His name. The Torah commands us to plant these trees so that we should not think all we have to do in the Holy Land is to simply it make it our home without civilising the country. You have appreciated that the words אל הארץ, to the land, etc., imply that the Torah speaks about spiritual values connected with this land. Perhaps we may look at the verse homiletically and view in the expression עץ מאכל, "a fruit-bearing tree" an allusion to Torah students who are also referred to as נטעים, "saplings" on occasion. The Talmud Shabbat 118 quotes Rabbi Yossi as sayings: "I have had marital relations on five occasions and I have planted five saplings." [in my text of the Talmud the word is not saplings but ארזים mighty cedars. Ed.] He referred, of course, to the five Torah scholars whom he fathered as a result of these unions and who are all enumerated by name in the Talmud. We have a verse in Isaiah 65,22 which describes the lives of "My people are like the life of a tree." The Zohar writes something similar on the commandment in Deut. 20,19 where the Torah prohibits destroying fruit-bearing trees in order to conquer a town one has laid siege to sooner. The words not to "destroy its trees" are understood as referring to Torah students. The air in the Holy Land helps in the acquisition of wisdom and purifies one's soul as we know from Baba Batra 158. The reason Torah students are compared to fruit-bearing trees is that they provide spiritual food for their listeners. You may wish to read about a story about Rabbi Akiva in Massechet Kallah Rabbati chapter 2 which described the venerable Rabbi teaching an orphaned child how to read. The father of this child had encountered great difficulties in the hereafter until the day his son was able to read and recite prayers. This paved the way for his father's progress in the hereafter. שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים, "for three years shall it be unto you as 'uncircumcised;'" the meaning of ערלים is אטומים, shut, impenetrable; during the first three years a Torah student studies he does not dare open his mouth to give forth of his newly acquired wisdom ju...

וכי תבואו אל הארץ, “when you will come into the land;” after the Torah had discussed “seed” in connection with both the woman and the earth, it now discusses seed of a tree that has been planted. ונטעתם, “when you will plant;” this expression teaches that the laws about orlah do not apply to branches only grafted onto a tree, nor do they apply to trees that grew as a result of someone having discarded a kernel or seed that had been dropped onto the earth unintentionally and had taken root. When this tree had grown in a region that is inhabited by people, it is considered as if it been planted intentionally, and is subject to the rules following. (Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Orlah 1,1) כל עץ מאכל, “every fruitbearing tree.” This excludes trees that bear no fruit, and trees planted as potential firewood or building material. (Sifra) The various shrubs that grow wild and provide us with their berries are also excluded from this legislation. שלש שנים יהיו לכם ערלים, “for a period of three years they will be for you as if “uncircumcised;” (forbidden) anything that matured during these years from these trees after they had been planted may not be stored and eaten even after the three years have expired. It would be bad manners if they would be eaten before the firstling fruit had been offered as an offering to G-d in the Temple first. [It would be equally bad manners to bring such an offering only several years after that fruit had ripened, even if it could have been preserved in prime condition. The laws governing such firstling fruit limit their being offered in the Temple later than by Chanukah following their being harvested. Ed.] Seeing that the fruit grown during that period is not of prime quality, it would be insulting to offer it to G-d. לכם, “for you (plural mode);” this is to include fruit trees grown for the benefit of the community as opposed to fruit grown for the benefit of the individual owner (Sifra).

שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים, “for three years it shall be forbidden to you (literally: uncircumcised);” the expression ערלה describes something which is covered up. It is as if the fruit on these trees are covered up, i.e. have not been released to the owner by the Torah. They are out of bounds for any use, such as selling them. According to the plain meaning of the text the idea underlying this commandment is that we give glory to G’d by putting at G’d’s disposal the first fruit which grows in our land and not to eat from it until we have brought all its fruit as an offering (symbolic) to the Lord (the fruit of the fourth year). It is well known that the ability of the tree to produce during the first three years after it has been planted is very limited, its yield very meagre. The fruit does not yet taste well and does not yet have much of a fragrance. As such it is not suitable as an “offering” to the Lord to whom we offer only our choicest. In fact, most trees do not even produce fruit until the fourth year as its potential has not been fully realised until he end of the third year. We find something similar reflected in the development of the human species. According to halachah, i.e. the view of the sages, a girl of under three years of age is incapable of becoming impregnated, so much so that if her hymen had been penetrated at an age of less than three years and a day, it will grow back and she remains a virgin to all intents and purposes (Niddah 44). A tree, until it is 24 hours into its fourth year is not considered as one whose fruit becomes holy as described in our portion. This is why we are not permitted to taste of any of the fruit of such trees until after the first day of its fourth year. Presentation of its fruit of that year in Jerusalem is similar to the treatment of the second tithe, something while sanctified yet permitted to the owner in the holy city of Jerusalem. Bringing the fruit to Jerusalem is considered as sanctifying it to the Lord, as the procedure is linked to praising the Lord. A further aspect worth mentioning, something which is known to botanists, to people familiar with agriculture. Fruit grown on a tree during the first three years of its existence is harmful to the human body as the tree has not yet enjoyed the warmth of the sun to an adequate degree and it still contains acidic juices absorbed by it roots from the earth. Until these forces of the earth have been counterbalanced by the heat in the air, they represent danger to the human species. It is similar to the fish which have no scales. Such fish contain an excess of the habitat of the fish in question and such excess of that element is apt to be harmful to the human body. [— Taken from the writings of Nachmanides who bases it on the writings of a well known Kabbalist by the name of Rabbi Ezra mentioned in the notes of Rabbi Chavell]. A Midrashic approach: (based on Tanchuma 14 Kedoshim). The reason that the fruit of the tree is forbidden for the first three years is that we consider such fruit as in a class similar to babies who are unable to speak properly for the first three years of their lives, i.e. their intellect is not yet fully formed. In the fourth year, when such a child is introduced to Torah study by its father all the father’s fruit is sanctified (i.e. a child when it starts learning Torah suddenly is of sacred nature). The word הלולים לה' describes the praises of the father to the Lord who has granted him a son who has started to learn Torah. The words: “In the fifth year you may eat” (verse 25), describe the time when the child can study the written text of the Torah already, i.e. from then on the child will add new dimensions of Torah. This is the meaning of the words להוסיף לכם תבואתו, “so that it will increase its crop for you.” This verse served our sages who said that the child is to study מקרא, i.e. the written text of the Torah from the age of five, progressing to Mishnah at the age of ten, etc. (Avot end chapter 5) as the model for their pronouncement. Seeing that in this imperfect world a father begets a son, takes him to the Torah Academy, invests time and toils indefatigably teaching him Torah and sometimes the child dies (as a minor) because of sins committed by its father, the Torah here said to the father (allegorically speaking) “in this present world, seeing that the evil urge is to be found all over and you fall victim to his lure and you sin and your children die, know that there will be a better world in the future when I will remove the evil urge and you will beget children and live happily to see them attain their potential.” This is what Isaiah 65,23 had in mind when he said: “they shall not toil to no purpose; they shall not bear children for terror, but they shall be a people blessed by the Lord, and their offspring shall remain with them.” An intellectual/investigative approach: Heaven and Earth jointly are the cause that the trees produce their fruit. The two may be viewed as similar to the male and the female. Heaven is the active ingredient (factor), earth the passive. Isaiah 55,10 speaks of the rain or snow dropping from heaven and soaking the earth so that it becomes impregnated.” During the first three years the earth is not mature enough to make the fruit ripen whereas heaven is not agreeable to imbue it with the power to make the fruit ripen. As a result, anyone who eats of the fruit which has grown during the first three years is as if he neither had a share in heaven nor a share on earth, seeing that he had eaten without permission from either earth or G’d. This is why the Torah prohibited the fruit during the first three years. Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,37, claims that in those days the pagans engaged in some hocus pocus at the times when trees were planted. They had some material which they threw at the new saplings which they believed would hasten such trees producing fruit sooner than was the custom in the rest of the world. In order to counter this the Torah ordered that fruit which matured during the first three years must not be eaten. This would deprive the people (Jews bent on economic advantage) practicing this form of pagan practice, as the ones perpetrating it would not benefit by it. Most trees produce fruit in the fourth year. The directive to eat the fruit of the fourth year in Jerusalem was to counter the practice of the pagans to eat the first fruit of their trees at sites dedicated to their deities. Negative influences exerted by various horoscopic forces cannot be neutralised except by performance of rites which are the reverse of those performed under the aegis of such horoscopic forces. A kabbalistic approach: The three years during which consumption of fruit during the first three years is forbidden correspond to the (three highest) emanations, כתר, חכמה, בינה. which are lumped together as one as we have no clear understanding of their workings. This concept corresponds to the period preceding creation of light, a period described in the Torah as tohu vavohu vachoshech, (Genesis 1,2) something which we also cannot fathom exactly with our minds. The fourth year of the tree yielding fruit corresponds to the emanation גבורה, (nowadays known as דין); this corresponds to what the Torah describes as “the spirit of G’d hovering over the expanse of the water,” {Genesis 1,3). This was a period not completely hidden from our ability to comprehend but also not completely revealed, made accessible to our faculties to comprehend. As a result, the Torah demands some form of פדיון, “redemption,” i.e. a process by which that which is beyond our normal capacities is made accessible before we may treat such produce as completely secular, “natural.” The fifth year corresponds to the era commencing with the creation of light, the first part of our material world. As pointed out on earlier occasions the word אור, “light” appears five times in the Torah’s report about its creation. The fifth year of a fruit-bearing tree is compared to the era of world history ushered in with the creation of light. The Torah alludes to this by writing of the fifth year להוסיף לכם תבואתו, with the letter ה added at the end [instead of the letter ו as is the spelling in our versions of the Torah, the pronoun ו “its” referring to the masculine word עץ in verse 23. The author views the letter ה which we do not have and which would be a grammatical inconsistency as an allusion to the five times the word אור, “light,” appears at the beginning of Genesis. Ed.]. In order to remind us of the relationship between the emanations and this legislation the Torah mentions the word ערלה three times in verse 23. In other words, each one of these three first years symbolizes a different concept.

For three years they shall be forbidden [arelim] to you. Many commentators have explained the reason for this commandment, that it is because it was a custom of the Amorites to employ techniques to hasten the fruiting of trees before their natural time. The Rambam wrote similarly in his Guide for the Perplexed. What appears reasonable to say is that this commandment serves as a reminder of the act of Creation, for all things were created on the first day, and each brought forth in its appointed day. Likewise, all vegetation of the earth was covered until the third day, and although they sprouted on the third day, they were not visible until the fourth day, when the luminaries were hung, which ripen all fruits, as they all depend on the sun and moon, as it is written with the finest produce of the sun, and the choicest yield of the moon (Deuteronomy 33:14). Thus, they were covered and not visible for consumption until the fourth day. Therefore, He commanded to make a remembrance of the act of Creation, that they should be covered and sealed for three years, as orlah refers to covering and sealing. And on the fourth day, although their ripening was complete, there was not yet any living creature in the world, and there was no mouth to eat them, as if their existence on the fourth day was only to give thanks and praise to their Creator who created them. Therefore, it is stated here as a remembrance of the act of Creation: In the fourth year all its fruit shall be sacred, for giving praise to the Lord. And on the fifth day some of the living creatures were created, which needed plant food; therefore it says: In the fifth year you may eat its fruit. And it does not say “all its fruit,” as it says regarding the fourth year: All its fruit shall be sacred. This is to teach that one should not eat all the fruit, but should give some to the poor and the stranger, because the commandments of gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and corners of the field were mentioned regarding grain but not trees, and our Sages said (Jerusalem Talmud, Peah 1:4): “How do we know trees are included? Because it says your field.” Therefore, it does not say “all.” And concerning the attribute of charity, He said to increase for you its produce, for there is one who scatters and yet increases (Proverbs 11:24). And since some people seek a guarantor and assurance for this, therefore He said: I am the Lord your God — trustworthy to repay.

ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל, “you will plant every kind of fruit-bearing tree.” After the Torah had discussed halachic aspects of planting seeds in the field, we now hear about halachic aspects of planting orchards. Placing seed inside a woman or placing seed inside the earth are activities that have quite a bit in common with one another. וערלתם ערלתו, “you shall treat its fruit as if uncircumcised. (forbidden)” Rashi views the choice of the term ערלה here as parallel to the meaning of the word when applied to the uncircumcised male, i.e closed off, אטום, not yet opened up. It is out of bounds, not yet to be enjoyed. Nachmanides also writes that there is something quite different in the prohibition of the fruit of newly planted trees during the first three years compared to other products the Torah has forbidden. The fact that it becomes permissible without our having to do anything to the fruit itself, once sufficient time has elapsed, lends support to the concept that ערלה is nothing else but a “closed door” which in due course will open. We find that the development of the fruit is referred to as פתיחה, compare Song of Songs 7,13 פתח הסמדר, “the blossoms opened up.” The Torah portrays the fruit of the first three years as if they had not yet “opened up.” The underlying reason for this commandment is parallel to the commandments governing agricultural products, such as the setting aside challah, the first part of dough when making bread, leaving a small section of one’s harvest uncut for the poor, donating terumah to the priest, G’d’s representative on earth, etc. In each of these instances the idea is that before we ourselves partake of G’d’s bounty, we indicate by performance of the respective commandments that we are aware of the origin of our wealth and that we are grateful to the Creator for this. If, in the case of orlah, these early fruit are not presented as a gift, the reason may be that such a gift of relatively underdeveloped fruit might be viewed as inappropriate, seeing that it is inferior. This is the reason why the fruit of the fourth year is treated as suitable for consumption in the holy city of Jerusalem, and only in the year following this is the tree’s bounty freely available to the owner of the orchard. (Verses 24-25) (The fruit of the fourth year is treated like the second tithe, מעשר שני, in that it is sacred to the extent that it either may be consumed only in Jerusalem, or redeemed so that the money of the proceeds is spent in Jerusalem. (Sifra) Nachmanides adds that it is true, (as scientists claim) that there is also a health hazard when the fruit of the first three years are consumed [raw, I presume, Ed.] as there is excessive acidity. Moreover, in the majority of cases the tree does not even produce fruit during the first tree years after having been planted, depending on climate and the quality of the soil, etc. Maimonides advances these considerations as the reason for the prohibition in his Moreh Nevuchim¸ section 3, chapter 37. He mentions that in earlier times the magicians, etc., in order to establish their reputation as quasi-deities, used to add some kind of poison to newly planted trees, which they knew would lose its power after a certain length of time. They would make you believe that it was they who had made these poisons harmless, the ordinary person not having any knowledge of the nature of such poisons, and thinking that whereas without the blessing of the magician they might have died, the magician possessed power over life and death, whereas in fact he only exploited the ignorance of natural science of the common man. [I gave just one example of how the ignorance and gullibility of the man in the street enabled the magicians to prosper from their superior knowledge. Ed.] When the appropriate time had arrived, these magicians would sacrifice some of this fruit to their particular deity, claiming that this sacrifice made the fruit safe for the multitude.

וערלתם, you will treat it as totally out of bounds, keeping your distance from it. The word occurs in a similar sense both in Jeremiah 6,10 ערלה אזנם, referring to the people’s ears, and in Ezekiel 44,9 ערל לב, describing the heart as totally unapproachable. We also find it in a similar sense in Chabakuk 2,16 שתה גם אתה והערל, where it also denotes someone utterly disgraced.

וערלתם, the expression ערלה basically describes an infant, which during the first three years of its life is totally illiterate. After that it begins to learn to speak intelligently; in other words, it produces some “fruit,” during that year, and during the next year it learns how to read and write, i.e. to understand parts of the Torah. Subsequently such youngsters begin to make contributions to civilised society. (Compare Talmud, tractate Baba Batra folio 21, where a youngster is described as having to study Torah from the age of six as he is mature enough). Compare also Ethics of our Fathers chapter 5 Mishnah 21 where a youngster of five years is described as ready to study the written text of the Torah.

And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, praises before Hashem.

יהיה כל פריו קדש [BUT IN THE FOURTH YEAR] THE FRUIT THEREOF SHALL BE HOLY, in the same way as the "second tithe" with reference to which, too, it is stated (Leviticus 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land… [belongeth to the Lord]; it is holy (קדש) unto the Lord". Now what is the law regarding the “second tithe"? It must not be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem except after redemption! The same is the case with this (the fruit in the fourth year). And this very thing הלולים לה׳, is A PRAISE OF THE LORD, for he takes it there (to Jerusalem) to praise and to laud God in Heaven, as he does with the second tithe (cf. Berakhot 35a).

"Holy, a praise-offering [hillulim]" — to praise Hashem; and the priest shall eat it.

קדש הלולים. Possessing a degree of sanctity similar to that of the second tithe which may only be consumed in Jerusalem. The objective of the legislation is to praise the Creator thanks to whose generosity the farmer enjoys the abundance of these fruit of the soil tilled by him. We are to learn to revere G’d by means of such commandments (Deut. 14,23).

And in the fourth year all the fruit of it shall be consecrated, (a token of) praise before the Lord delivered for the priest (or, to be redeemed from the priest).

And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, to add to your yield. I am Hashem your God.

להוסיף לכם תבואתה [AND IN THE FIFTH YEAR SHALL YE EAT THE FRUIT THEREOF] THAT IT MAY YIELD UNTO YOU ITS INCREASE — This command (of ערלה and נטע רבעי, fruit of the fourth year) which you observe will result in its giving you its produce in larger quantities. Because as a reward for it (for the fulfilment of My command) I shall bless for you the fruit of the plantation. R. Akiba used to say: “The Torah says this because it has man’s evil inclination in mind: that one should not say, "Behold, for four years I must take trouble with it for nothing!" Scripture therefore states that the result of your obedience will be that it will give you its produce in larger quantities (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 3 9). 'אני ה means, it is I, the Lord, Who gives you a promise about this (that your obedience to Me will bring a blessing on your harvest) and Who am faithful to keep My promise.

The meaning of "to increase its yield for you" — this is connected to "holy, a praise-offering," even though it is distant; similarly, "he shall surely pay, and if he has nothing" is connected with "five oxen shall he pay for the ox" (Exodus 21:37 — 22:3), and there are many like these. The meaning of "I am Hashem your God": that I will add blessing to the produce.

להוסיף לכם תבואתו, this is what you will merit if you do what I have commanded you.

You shall not eat over the blood; you shall not practice divination, and you shall not observe times.

לא תאכלו על הדם YE SHALL NOT EAT ANYTHING על הדם — This text is interpreted in many different ways in Treatise Sanhedrin 63a: It is taken as a prohibition of eating the flesh of the sacrifices before their blood has been sprinkled; and as a prohibition addressed to him who eats of the flesh of a non-consecrated animal (חולין) before life has entirely left it; and many other interpretations are there given. לא תנחשו YE SHALL NOT DIVINE — as do those who draw prognostications from the cry of a weasel or the twittering of birds (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 6 2; Sanhedrin 66a), or from the fact that the bread falls from his mouth or that a stag crosses his path (Sanhedrin 65b). ולא תעוננו The verb is connected in meaning with “period" (עונה) and “hours"; thus a מעונן is one who says: “This or that day is auspicious for beginning a work, this or that hour is inauspicious for starting on a journey (Sanhedrin 66a).

YE SHALL NOT EAT WITH THE BLOOD. “This passage has been explained in many different ways in Tractate Sanhedrin.” This is the language of Rashi. Now the conclusion of that discussion in the Talmud is that all those interpretations [of the verse before us] are Torah-ordained, since Scripture included all manner of “eating with the blood” in one negative commandment. And if so, that which Scripture states in the case of Saul, Behold, the people sin against the Eternal, in that they eat with the blood, means that they transgressed one of the prohibitions included in this negative commandment, since they were eating of an animal [slaughtered properly] before its life had entirely left it. It is with reference to this that Scripture states there, And the people flew upon the spoil, like a bird of prey that tears its victim and eats it, and they took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with the blood. Because of the abundance of spoil of cattle [that they had taken from the Philistines], as soon as [they were slaughtered properly and] their blood was spilled on the ground, they tore off their limbs and ate them before life had entirely left the animals. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, this seems to have been a kind of witchcraft or divination, since [the meaning of this passage] may be deduced from its context; [i.e., from the second half of this verse which states, neither shall ye practice divination nor soothsaying, we may deduce that the first half of the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood also refers to some form of witchcraft, as will be explained]. Thus they used to spill the blood [of the cattle] and gather it in a hollow, which was then attended, according to their opinion, by the satyrs, and they would eat at their tables to tell them future events. Now when the Israelites were at that time camping with Saul, they were very much afraid of the Philistines, and Saul did nothing except for inquiring of the Urim and Thummim, as it is said, Let us draw near hither unto G-d, while the people were inquiring of the satyrs or of witchcraft to know their way and what to do, and they were eating with the blood in order to perform that craft [mentioned above]. It is for this reason that Scripture there states, Then they told Saul, saying: ‘Behold, the people sin against the Eternal, in that they eat with the blood.’ And he said: ‘Ye have dealt treacherously,’ meaning to say: “Behold, G-d has wrought for you this day this great salvation, and you inquire of no-gods! It is treachery!” I will yet explain the prohibition against soothsaying and enchanting.

"You shall not eat over the blood" — this is connected to the verse above; for just as He warned about the planted tree that one shall not eat of its fruit until the fifth year, so too all pure meat shall not be eaten until its blood is sprinkled upon the altar of Hashem, if one is near the place of the Sanctuary — and the reliable evidence is the words of Saul, since the Ark was with him, as it is written: "behold, they are eating over the blood" (1 Samuel 14:33) — as if they were slaughtering sacrifices to the goat-demons, as I have explained, for it was the custom [of the Egyptians] in Egypt to slaughter in the name of the demons. For since the blood was not sprinkled upon the altar for the sake of Hashem, the matter is self-evident; therefore connected to it is "you shall not divine," for in Egypt they ate over the blood and went astray after the demons, and in the land of Canaan they practiced divination and soothsaying — as it is written: "this too is like the practice of the land of Egypt and like the practice of the land of Canaan" (Leviticus 18:3). The word "menahesh" ["diviner"] means one who tests [the omen], like "I have divined [niḥashti] and Hashem has blessed me" (Genesis 30:27), for one divines by means of formations, and sticks, and actions, and movements, and days and hours. "Teʿonenu" ["soothsayer"] — some say this comes from the root ʿanah ["to answer"], meaning that he thinks something in his heart and turns his ear to hear what the speaker answers; but grammar does not support this. Others say it comes from ʿonah ["her conjugal rights"] (Exodus 21:10) — but the correct view in my opinion is that it derives from ʿanan ["cloud"], for it is known that there are those who practice cloud-gazing, studying the clouds, their shapes, and their movements. It is also possible that "teʿonenu" belongs to the class of doubled verbs, like "tesovevenu" ("you shall surround"), for we find "veʿonenim" ["soothsayers"] like the Philistines (Isaiah 2:6), since it may come from the doubled conjugation — and the evidence is "and soothsayer and diviner."

לא תאכלו על הדם לא תנחשו ולא תעננו, all of these practices were commonplace also among the Israelites who were desperate to gain advance knowledge of what was in store for them individually. Such practices had to be eradicated if the people were to progress from an overall environment of spiritual morass, רוח טומאה, to spiritual bliss, רוח טהרה ונבואה, spiritual purity and prophetic spirit.

לא תאכלו על הדם, "You shall not eat with the blood;" Bereshit Rabbah 21,7 say that the reason that this commandment appears next to the prohibition of ערלה is an allusion to Adam who had eaten from the tree of knowledge before its period of being ערלה had expired. [the other trees had been expressly permitted by G'd so that that prohibiton was overridden. Ed] According to the Midrash, all Adam had to do was to wait until the advent of the Sabbath. He would have been permitted to recite the benediction over wine; [according to the view that the fruit of the tree of knowledge were grapes. Ed.] This is the mystical dimension of the statement in Sanhedrin 38 that אדם מושך בערלתו היה, that "Adam was pulling at his ערלה." The word refers to the as yet not permitted fruit; Adam was too impatient. This is why the Torah writes next to the commandment וערלתם ערלתו, "do not eat with the blood," i.e. "do not eat of the fruit of the tree which is still ערלה because of the blood," i.e. all bloodshed in the world originated when Adam ate from that tree prematurely. We may extrapolate from this that had it not been for Adam's failure at the time there never would have been such a prohibition as the one described in our paragraph. Neither plants nor animals would have become restricted to man at all, either temporarily or permanently.

לא תאכלו על הדם, “you must not eat the flesh of an animal until it has been ritually slaughtered. This would be supported by Samuel I 14,32: ויעש העם את שלל ויקחו צאן ובקר וישחטו ארצה יאכל העם על הדם, “the people (who had been described in the previous verse as being famished) pounced on the spoils; they took the sheep and the cows and calves and slaughtered them on the ground and they ate with the blood.” [When King Saul heard about this he was terribly upset and chided them for having sinned against G-d. Ed.] An alternate interpretation: the words לא תאכלו על הדם are a variation of the commandment not to practice necromancy. Seeing that the survivors of slain people are charged with avenging their dead, they may feel inclined to sit on the graves of the dead to assuage their dead relatives’ anger at not having been avenged. The dead are apparently credited with some power in this respect. (According to Rash’bam, the Emorites believed this, especially about witches who had been murdered. Seeing that the uncircumcised gentiles do eat blood, the Torah would have addressed this subject at this point also.)

לא תאכלו על הדם, “You shall not eat over the blood;” here too the Torah warns about Jews not indulging in pagan practices which were current at the time the Torah was given. People used to dig a hole and pour blood into it and the demons would congregate around such holes. While in the company of these demons they would consume their meal. Seeing that they fraternized with the demons the demons would reciprocate by revealing future events to the people eating there with them. This was a wide-spread practice amongst the Egyptians and the Israelites had learned from them until they too began to believe in the power of these demons and they would seek out their company. In order to wean the Israelites of such idolatrous practices the Torah forbade eating a meal in the presence of blood (which had not been covered up, buried or poured out). Our sages (Berachot 10) understand this verse as a warning not to eat breakfast before one has recited the morning prayer. They phrased it thus; “do not eat before you have prayed concerning your blood (guilt).” [i.e. have asked forgiveness for your sins. Ed.] They also used this verse to arrive at the ruling that capital offenses must not be judged except during the morning hours of the day (Sanhedrin 63). The judges were not allowed to try such cases after they had already filled their stomachs so as not to approach the accused’s fate in a smug manner. Seeing that they could not be expected to fast a whole day and not be affected by their hunger pains or a desire to prematurely conclude their deliberations in order to have a meal, the sages ruled that such trials must take place in the mornings. When the Torah decreed that we fast on the Day of Atonement this may also reflect that our lives are at stake on that day. If we had eaten already when commencing to pray we might not relate to the day with the appropriate gravity of mind that it deserves. We are more likely to repent sincerely and throw ourselves on G’d’s mercy when we have deprived ourselves of customary creature comforts such as food. If one is commanded to be careful to be in a fit state of mind when judging others, how much more so must one be in the right frame of mind when one’s own life hangs in the balance, such as on the Day of Atonement! This is what Solomon meant when he wrote (Proverbs 6,32) “he who causes his own life’s destruction will do it” (commit the aforementioned crime of adultery; i.e. sinning is like self-destruction). There was perhaps no need to stress this point when it concerns life and death decisions; but even when matters of monetary values are at stake they should be dealt with during the morning seeing we have a verse in Jeremiah 21,12: “render just verdicts morning by morning; rescue him who is robbed from him who defrauded him.” We have a saying: “he who ate and drank should not pronounce judgments or rulings on religious matters.” [Rabbi Chavell cites a Zohar Mishpatim 122 that “anyone who passed judgment after he ate and drank did not pass a true verdict.” Ed.]

לא תאכלו על הדם, “do not eat over the blood.” According to Rashi there are numerous interpretations offered for this verse, one of them being reflected in Samuel I 14,33 הנה העם חוטאים לאכול על הדם, “here the people commit a sin by eating over the blood, etc.” [The people ate from the loot of the battle while the slain had not yet been buried, etc.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warns against adopting the practice of the sorcerers who used to gather around blood they had spilled and preserved in a bowl, and foretell the future, relying on the demons that would gather around to foretell them the path of future events. When the Jewish soldiers were with their King Sha-ul in camp and they were very much afraid of the Philistines their enemies, Sha-ul would not do anything without consulting the urim vetumim, as we know from above chapter in Samuel, verse 36. To his consternation, on this occasion the priest did not receive a reply to his enquiry, something which prompted Sha-ul to enquire which sin the people could have been guilty of that would deny them access to the word of G’d. As a result, it was found out that his own son Yonathan had violated his father’s command not to taste any food on the day of the battle, and he had, while being unaware of the prohibition, tasted some honey. The people, not wanting to accuse Yonathan, had phrased it as if all of them had been guilty of a trespass, i.e. eating prematurely on the day of the battle. [Prior to the battle, the people had not asked via the urim vetumim, but engaged in sorcery regarding the continuation of the war, something which Sha-ul considered a grievous act of treachery against G’d. Also, they had started to enjoy the spoils of war without giving thanks to the Lord by means of the blood of the appropriate animals being presented on an altar. Ed.] The reason why the Torah wrote the legislation of ערלה, the restrictions applying to the fruit of the tree during its first three years, immediately after the above legislation is to show that here too before enjoying the fruits of defeating an enemy, first we must express our gratitude to Hashem Who has made us victorious. Seeing that in periods when private altars were forbidden this might represent quite a hardship, the rule was enforced only when there was a legitimate altar in the vicinity. לא תנחשו, “do not indulge in sorcery.” The word נחש is similar in meaning to that of נסיון, experimenting and using the outcome of the experiment as one’s guideline for how to act. [It is debatable if Eliezer’s request at the well stipulating certain behaviour patterns of the maidens that came out to draw water at the well falls into the category of forbidden ניחוש, at any rate at that time Torah had not yet been given. Ed.] Lavan admitted to Yaakov that he was in the habit of using such sorcery, i.e. Genesis 30, 27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have discovered by such experimentation, that G’d’s blessing for me is on your account.” ולא תעוננו, “and you are not to believe that some periods are lucky compared to others.” Ibn Ezra writes that some people claim that the word עונן is derived from ענה, “answering,” i.e. a person poses a certain question expecting to guide his behaviour according to the answer he receives. This is not a tenable interpretation according to the rules of grammar. He believes, instead, that the correct interpretation is based on the word being derived from ענן, “cloud,” that the Torah forbids us to read meaning into the cloud patterns we observe in the sky, and to use such patterns as guidelines for our behaviour.

לא תאכלו על הדם, according to the plain meaning of the text this is something we can derive by merely reading the context in which it has been written, i.e. while the blood of the slaughtered animal has not yet been removed. לא תנחשו ולא תעוננו, unless warned against these practices the Jews would also engage in such practices as eating on the grave of the slain for the sake of protecting themselves against the vengeance by the spirit of the murdered person (particularly murdered witches). The Talmud Sanhedrin 63 lists a number of possible scenarios described by our verse.

You shall not round the corners of your head, and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard.

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם YE SHALL NOT ROUND THE CORNERS OF YOUR HEAD — This refers to one who makes his temples exactly like (as hairless as) the back of his ears and his forehead (cf. Rashi on Makkot 20b, ד״ה המשוה צדעיו) by removing the hair on his temples, so that the lower edge of the hair that surrounds his head (i. e. his skull, because we are not concerned with hair at the back of the neck) forms a complete circle, since above the back of his ears the roots of his hair are situated much higher than his temples (and it is thus only the temples which prevent an uninterrupted circular line going round his skull). (Cf. Makkot 20b). פאת זקנך [NEITHER SHALT THOU MAR] THE CORNERS OF THY BEARD — i. e. the tip of the beard and its sides, these making together five corners: two on each cheek, above near the head (the temples) — where it (the cheek) is broad and has therefore two corners (thus four on the two sides) and one at the bottom, on the chin, on that spot where is the junction of the two cheeks (Shevuot 3a; cf. also Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 6 3; Makkot 20a and Rashi on Shevuot 3a: ועל הזקן (ד"ה

The reason for mentioning "you shall not round the corners of your head" — [this is] like the practice of the nations, [so] that [Israel] should be distinguished from them; and furthermore, since the hair of the head and the beard was created for beauty, it is not proper to destroy it. Some say this verse is connected to "and a gash for the dead" (v. 28), for there are those who destroy the corner of their head and also the corner of the beard on account of the dead.

Seeing that it is part of revering the Lord and honouring Him not to desecrate our own bodies which He sanctified to enable us to serve Him, the Torah begins with a list of prohibitions designed to emphasise this point. לא תקיפו, we must not desecrate our heads by removing its hair as is the custom of gentile clergy or fools and drunkards. Neither are we to shave off the beard which represents man’s dignity, הדרת פנים שלו, “Shabbat 152. Neither are we to make incisions on our skin, something that is customary amongst pagans as an expression of their grief for family members who have died. Excessive mourning of this kind could be interpreted as questioning G’d Who allowed the departed to die. The same applies to a well known method of tattooing one’s skin with indelible ink below the skin, a permanent defacing of one’s body, described as כתובת קעקע. The only “improvements” to our G’d given body we are to make is the sign of the covenant, i.e. the removal of the foreskin of our males. Allowing or encouraging one’s unmarried daughter to devote her life to one of harlotry is a major desecration of one’s purpose on earth. Not only does the daughter desecrate the name of G’d by doing so, but she also desecrates the image of her father and all that he stands for. The death penalty by burning is decreed for such conduct under certain conditions in Leviticus 21,9.

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, "Do not round off the corners of your head, etc." In this instance the Torah addresses the Israelites in the plural, whereas when speaking of the beard (in the same verse) it addresses the individual, i.e. in the singular. This teaches that the first admonition in the verse applies even to people who cannot apply the second half of the verse to themselves seeing they do not have a beard. We could easily have made such a mistake as women who do not have beards also are not subject to the prohibition of rounding the corners of their heads compare (Kidushin 38). Should you ask why we have arrived at such an apparently arbitrary distinction, i.e. that the males are included in both prohibitions whereas the women are exempt from both, the answer is that the males become subject to the second prohibiton as soon as they are old enough whereas the women as a rule never become subject to the second prohibition. Nature did not endow them with hair in that area of their faces.

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, “do not round off the edge of your scalp, etc.” This is a warning not to shave the temple with a razor whether in conjunction with the hair on the rest of the head or by themselves. If one shaves both temples one is liable for the penalty separately for each temple. ולא תשחית את פאת זקנך, “and do not destroy the edge of your beard.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason is that the visible sign which G’d has given man to distinguish him from the females of the species should not be destroyed. By destroying one’s beard one commits an act of rebellion against what G’d had intended. Violating this commandment is in a similar class to violating the commandment not to mate different species. During the report of the creation the Torah stresses again and again that G’d created all the species each according to their respective species, i.e. there is to be no cross-breeding. Had the Torah written את זקנך, I would have thought that one is not liable for the penalty of 39 lashes unless one had destroyed one’s entire beard; seeing that the Torah writes את פאת זקנך, “the edge of your beard,” it is clear that even partial destruction of one’s beard makes one liable to the penalty. The beard has five edges which are subject to this prohibition. two are on the right side of the face, two on the left side of the face, and one below the mouth. The beard is considered as starting immediately below the ear. If someone shaved off all the five corners he would be liable to five times the penalty of 39 lashes. This is the reason the Torah wrote the word פאת, “an edge of,” to indicate that each edge is forbidden individually. A logical approach: all of man’s activities are related to the five senses with which he perceives things, and it is not appropriate for him to eliminate (totally fail to use) even one of these senses completely as this might prove fatal for him; therefore he should make judicious use of each of these senses, i.e. seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting. He must, however, be careful to employ these senses only for matters permitted for him to enjoy. The prohibition to destroy 5 edges of the beard are a symbolic reminder that one cannot do completely without even a single one of these five senses. Otherwise the result would be destruction of one’s body. It is permitted to perform beard-trimming with scissors or instruments other than a razor as some of the hair above the skin remains and the beard is not destroyed completely. (compare Makkot 21) A kabbalistic approach: the reason that destruction of this hair is prohibited is that the letters of the Holy Name, tetragram, are concealed within the structure of the body; the respective letters י-ה-ו are featured as part of the מילה, the organ which is circumcised, the mouth, and the tongue. This is why (according to the view of Rabbi Yochanan in Nazir 59) anyone who shaves his pubic hair with a razor is guilty of the same transgression as someone who shaves the hair of the “upper” beard, i.e. the facial beard. According to our author there are textbooks on anthropology which claim that the supreme intelligence with which our body has been constructed by Divine design is manifest in the way the areas where hair sprouts freely (face and pubic area) are interrelated. It is interesting that people who are unable to beget children, are sterile, do not have pubic hair and do not grow a beard. There are tendons which originate in either area of the body where such hair grows. Women and eunuchs do not grow hair in these areas of the body as both do not possess the facility of generating male sperm. Neither of them have tendons which originate in those areas and which link these two areas of the body to each other. They are (for people who possess them) a symbol of unity, i.e. an allusion to G’d. Hence it is proper for men engaging in marital relations to sanctify themselves beforehand. This whole commandment is a warning that through improper use of these organs one is not to become guilty of “erasing” the letters of the Holy Name which are part of one’s body (compare Shevuot 18).

לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, “do not round off the edge of your scalp.” Ibn Ezra understands this as a warning not to trim one’s hair in the manner that the priests of idolatrous cults are in the habit of doing. 1) We should not look like such people but preserve our identities also in the manner in which we appear externally. Furthermore, seeing that hair, especially hair of the head, is considered a mark of beauty, what possible reason would we have to deprive ourselves of this mark of תפארת, ”glory?”

And incisions for the dead you shall not make in your flesh, and inscribed marks you shall not put upon yourselves. I am Hashem.

ושרט לנפש [YE SHALL NOT MAKE] ANY CUTTINGS [IN YOUR FLESH] FOR THE DEAD — This was the practice of the Amorites (a general term for heathens) to make cuttings in their flesh when someone belonging to them died. וכתבת קעקע [NOR SHALL YE IMPRESS] ANY WRITING BY ETCHING [UPON YOU] — i. e. a writing engraved (more lit., dug into) and sunk into the flesh and which can never be erased because it is pricked in with a needle and remains black forever. קעקע (root יקע) is an expression connected in sense with והוקע in (Numbers 25:4) “and hang them (והוקע אותם)" and with (II Samuel 21:6) "and we will hang them (הוקענום)". They drove poles into the ground and hanged them upon these — consequently they themselves, as the poles, were, so to speak, dug in and inserted in the ground; pourpoint in O. F.

"A gash" — and also the [meaning of the] "corner" of the head and of the beard is known from received tradition. The word "la-nefesh" — [it refers to] the dead body, and so it is translated [in the Targum], and that is the truth; the nun is not doubled [with a dagesh] in order to ease pronunciation. "And an incised writing [ketovat qaʿaqaʿ]" — some say this is connected to "a gash for the dead," for there are those who mark their bodies with a known design [burned in] with fire on account of the dead; and there are those even today who mark [the faces of] the young so that they will be recognized. The word "qaʿaqaʿ" is a reduplicated [doubled] form, like "roqaʿ ha-aretz ve-tzeʾetsaeha" (Isaiah 42:5); it derives from the root of "and impale [vehoqaʿ] them" (Numbers 25:4). According to the translator [Targum], it too is an unusual word — and that too is the correct view.

ושרם לנפש לא תתנו בבשרכם, "And you shall not make an incision on your flesh in mourning of someone who died." The reason the Torah emphasises the word נפש is to make plain that though the incision is an injury to one's body, the reason for it is the departure of someone's נפש, someone's soul. The Torah is careful to describe this as לא תתנו בבשרכם, "do not give it on your flesh," to explain that the incision will not leave an injury on one's soul but only on one's flesh. The reason that the incision does not leave permanent damage on one's soul is that the body is considered the sheath of the soul, and man is very excited and hasty when he loses a dear relative to death (Shabbat 43). The Torah therefore continues with a different kind of bodily defacement which leaves a deeper and more permanent mark, i.e. וכתובת קעקע לא תתנו בכם, "and do not tatoo yourselves;" you will note that in this instance the Torah did not use the restrictive word בבשרכם, to show you that tatoos are considered as injuring not only the body but also the soul. The reason tatooing leaves an injury also on one's soul is that it is something which requires great care, is not performed hastily like the incision called שרט. It is only natural then that it leaves a far deeper impression on one's personality than the hastily performed incision. We are told in Baba Batra 16 that a person is not "seized" i.e. held totally responsible, for things he does at the time when he experiences deep mental anguish. The Torah concludes the verse with the words אני השם. The reason for this is explained by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in Zohar volume 3, page 247. The word אני refers to G'd's throne which we are in the habit of referring to as His שכינה, His Presence. The tetragram i.e. the name י־ה־ו־ה on the other hand, is a reference to He who sits on that throne. With the expression אני השם G'd indicates that He is punctilious regarding the honour due to Him as well as the honour due to His throne. The relationship between man's body and his soul is similar to the relationship between G'd's throne and His essence. Seeing man has been created in the image of G'd, He does not want us to injure either our bodies or our souls.

ושרט, “and an incision in your skin or flesh as a sign of mourning,” the word שרט is written in the singular mode although these incisions are usually multiple incisions, in order to warn us that we would be guilty for a separate sin for each such incision, even if they had all been made at the same time. לנפש, “on account of a dead;” if you were to do this on account of some other misfortune suffered, such as a house collapsing in an earthquake, or the loss of your cargo by the boat carrying it having sunk, this would not be punishable. (Sifra)

וכתבת קעקע, “nor a tatoo.” Rashi understands this to mean something engraved on one’s flesh (skin) in an indelible manner. The word would be related to תקוע, “firmly in place.” The procedure is that one “writes” with a needle beneath the skin. The area remains black forever. Our sages in Sifra Kedoshim 6,9 remark that seeing one might have thought that the mere writing on the skin would have been culpable, the Torah adds the word קעקע, to tell us that unless this writing is of such a permanent nature no penalty is incurred. At the same time, had the Torah written only the word קעקע I would have thought that the fact that an indelible mark had been made this would already have been a culpable offense, therefore the Torah had to write the words כתבת קעקע, “an indelible inscription performed with a needle-like instrument.” According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, as long as the writing did not include the tetragrammaton one is not liable to the penalty for violating this commandment. He derives this rule from the ending of our verse, אני ה', meaning that unless the name of G’d was part of the inscription there is no penalty. The whole verse could be translated as: “do not inscribe My name on your flesh in an indelible manner.”

Do not profane your daughter by causing her to go astray, lest the land go astray and the land become filled with sinful counsel.

אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה DO NOT PROSTITUTE THY DAUGHTER TO CAUSE HER TO BE A HARLOT — Scripture speaks of one who gives his unmarried daughter away for illegitimate concubinage (cf. Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 2; Sanhedrin 76a). ולא תזנה הארץ LEST THE EARTH BECOME DISLOYAL TO YOU — If you do this the soil will become faithless to you in regard to the distribution of its fruits, producing them in other places and not in your land. Scripture uses this simile also in (Jeremiah 3:2—3) "and thou hast polluted thy land with thy whoredom… Therefore the showers have been withholden etc.” (so that the land yielded no fruit) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 4; Tosefta Kiddushin 1).

PROFANE NOT THY DAUGHTER, TO MAKE HER A HARLOT. “This refers to one who gives his unmarried daughter [to a man] without the intention of betrothal. LEST THE LAND FALL INTO HARLOTRY. If you do so, the soil too will be unfaithful to you and it will produce its fruits in another place and not in your Land. And so does Scripture state, Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain, and thou hadst a harlot’s forehead etc.” This is Rashi’s language. But I have not understood his opinion, for the term “harlotry” in the Torah nowhere applies to an unmarried woman, since it is the accepted decision of the law that if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, he has [nonetheless] not rendered her thereby “a harlot.” And in Tractate Sanhedrin the Sages have clearly stated this principle: “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by becoming a harlot etc. I might think that this applies even if she be unmarried.” Thereupon the Rabbis asked: “[But how could one think this to be the case?] Is it not written by becoming a harlot [and the term ‘harlot’ applies only to a married woman who commits adultery]?” To this question the Rabbis answered, that [the above supposition was] “in accordance with the [unaccepted] opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, he does render her ‘a harlot.’” [From this text it is obvious that the accepted opinion of the Sages is that if she was unmarried, he does not render her “a harlot.”] Similarly the Rabbis have said that the verse They [i.e., the priests] shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned, does not apply to an unmarried woman, but only to a proselytess and a freed bondwoman, or to one who had intercourse with a man in the nature of fornication, such as with a man whose betrothal to her would not be valid, as is explained in Yebamoth and in the Sifra: “A woman that is a harlot. Rabbi Yehudah says that this refers to a sterile woman. But the Sages say: The word ‘harlot’ refers only to a proselytess, a freed bondwoman, or to one who had intercourse with a man in the nature of fornication. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if an unmarried man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman, without the intention of thereby making her his wife, this too [is a case of the ‘harlot’].” Similarly the Rabbis have said with reference to the prohibition, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the House of the Eternal, that this has no application whatever to an unmarried woman. But the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim [which is the source for Rashi’s interpretation] and which is also mentioned in Tractate Sanhedrin [namely, that the verse before us refers to one who gives his unmarried daughter for immorality], may either be in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer [mentioned...

The reason for mentioning "do not profane your daughter" — on account of the [preceding prohibition of a] gash for the dead, [i.e.,] that she should not be exposed before everyone; for the voice of a woman is intimate, and how much more so a gash. "And the land shall not go astray" — the meaning is: the harlotry of the inhabitants of the land, similar to "a land that sins against Me" (Ezekiel 14:13).

אל תחלל את בתך, "Do not profane your daughter, etc." G'd commands the father of a daughter not to make her into a sex-object even by merely displaying her beauty and enjoying the compliments paid to her beauty. The honour of a daughter is not in the admiring glances she receives by men ogling her but by her presiding in her domain inside the home. Even though a father displays his daughter in order to facilitate finding a suitable husband for her, G'd still commanded that from the girl's point of you it is a profanation for her; such displays may eventually lead to the daughter engaging in harlotry even at the instigation of her father. Once the father uses his daughter's physical charms to attract a husband and thereby a substantial dowry for himself, he may become tempted to use her earnings from illicit sex for himself instead. He may be exploiting the natural sexual desires which are kindled when the girl knows she is on display and admired. The next step in such permissiveness may be the spread of harlotry in the land until the land becomes so permeated by this sin that it will spew out its inhabitants. Eventually, the whole sin will be debited to the father who first ignored the prohibition in our verse. Read what I have written on Leviticus 18,2 in connection with the verse כמעשה ארץ מצרים. I have explained there that the sense of vision and the fantasies it conjures up is stronger than the will-power seated in one's brain and that this is why one must not feed the sense of vision with anything liable to arouse one's libido or someone else's libido either.

אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה, “do not profane your daughter by letting her become a harlot.” This is a warning to a father not to put off marrying off his daughter before she reaches the age of 12 and a half.[Seeing that the Torah does not address itself to fathers who use their daughters’ bodies as a source of income, the sages did not interpret the verse literally. Ed. ולא תזנה את הארץ, “do not let the land become full of harlots!” The warning implied is that the land itself will copy your perversity if the people on this land will tolerate and practice this also. How does this work in practice? You seeded wheat and the earth produces thorns. An alternate interpretation: the word ארץ is not meant literally but refers to the inhabitants of that earth. We have an example of the word ארץ meaning that in Ezekiel 14,12: ארץ כי תחטא לי ,, “when the land sins against Me,” where it is impossible to understand the word ארץ as “a land,” but it must refer to the people on that land. זמה, this word may be understood as an acronym, i.e. זו מה היא?, “what is this?” Who is the father of that mother’s child? (Talmud, tractate Nedarim, folio 51).

אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה, “do not desecrate your daughter by making her into a harlot;” Rashi, basing himself on Torat Kohanim, understands our verse as handing over one’s daughter to be used sexually in any setting other than that of wedlock. Nachmanides, severely limits this verse by stating that the term used here means only not to allow one’s daughter to become sexually involved with parties who because of legal restrictions could never offer marriage to such a girl. This, according to most authorities would mean that if the relationship would lead to marriage the penalty would be death, either by a court of law or by heavenly decree, karet. [Tthe disagreement, of course, does not touch on the ethics or morality of the situation, but on the legal implications of our verse. Ed.] The only scholar who considers what Rashi says as legally making such a daughter into a harlot when she sleeps with a male while she is unattached, is Rabbi Eliezer, whose opinion is not accepted by halachah. ולא תזנה הארץ, “so that the land not become a whore.” The restrictive clause “the land,” which is interpreted by Sifra as ‘but you may make a whore out of the produce of the land,” is understood by Nachmanides as arrived at by the Torah not having written ולא יזנו את אנשי הארץ, “so that the people of the land will not become pimps and whores.” There is no question that the principal concern of the verse is the second prohibition not to become guilty of the land becoming full of harlotry, etc. The last few words are to be viewed as an independent prohibition. The author of halachot gedolot, (Rabbi Yehudai ben Rabbi Shemuel gaon, head of the Babylonian Torah academy in Sura) lists these words as one of the 365 negative commandments in the Torah, stating that it is a twofold prohibition, i.e. a warning to the father separately and to the daughter in her own right not to allow herself to be used by her father in such a fashion. She must not have sexual relations with anyone except for the purpose of entering into a relationship of wedlock. The Torah divides the verse into two halves, the first one dealing with a girl who as a minor is under the total control of her father, the second part addressing such a girl after she has grown up and is still not married. It then applies to her and her male partner equally.

להזנותה, to make her into a harlot. The Torah speaks of an unmarried promiscuous woman [minor who is under her father’s legal control. Ed.]

My Sabbath days you shall observe, and toward My Sanctuary you shall be in awe. I am Hashem.

ומקדשי תיראו AND YE SHALL REVERE MY SANCTUARY — This implies that one should not enter it with his staff in hand or in his shoes, or with his money belt or with the dust on his feet (all signs of irreverence) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 9; Berakhot 54a; Yevamot 6b). But — says God — although I warn you with regard to the reverence due to the Sanctuary, yet — את שבתתי תשמרו YOU SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS — not even the erection of the Sanctuary can set aside the Sabbath law (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 7; Yevamot 6a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 35:2).

YE SHALL KEEP MY SABBATHS. There are many warnings in the Torah regarding [the observance of] the Sabbath, just as in the case of idolatry, because the law of the Sabbath too, is equal to all the commandments, for one who does not observe it, denies the [Divine] Creation and has no Torah at all. Our Rabbis have an interpretation on this verse. Thus they said here in the Torath Kohanim: “I might think that the building of the Sanctuary overrides the Sabbath; Scripture therefore states, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary: I am the Eternal” [meaning: “not even the erection of the Sanctuary can override the keeping of the Sabbath”]. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], He commands here concerning the Great Sabbath and the Sabbath which is His Sanctuary [on high], that it be both guarded and reverenced. For this reason the work on the erection of the Sanctuary [on earth] does not override the Sabbath and the Sanctuary [on high]. The student learned in the mysteries of the Cabala will understand.

The reason for mentioning "My Sabbaths you shall observe" — on account of mourning for the dead, for there is no mourning on the Sabbath. The meaning of "and My Sanctuary you shall revere" — regarding the High Priest, that he shall not be like other mourners; and this is likewise a warning to all those associated with the Sanctuary. The meaning of "I am Hashem": that if they do not revere His Sanctuary and give it honor, He will punish them.

את שבתותי תשמורו, After the Torah warned concerning a number of practices that constitute a desecration, it now proceeds to legislate days and places and people who are sacred in varying degrees. This begins with את שבתותי תשמורו, to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath days, a sanctity bestowed on the Sabbath by G’d Himself, and including all holy convocations, מקראי קדש, whose dates have been confirmed by the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court. ומקדשי תיראו, a warning to treat all holy sites with awe and reverence. This includes synagogues and all places dedicated to the service of the Lord, especially, the ones used for such activities by the public.

את שבתתי תשמרו, "You shall observe My Sabbaths, etc." Why did the Torah repeat here a commandment already written at the beginning of our Parshah (19,3)? Here is how Torat Kohanim explains this: "I might have thought that the commandment to build the Holy Temple supersedes that of not working on the Sabbath. The Torah therefore repeats that you must observe "My Sabbaths" to teach us that the Sabbath legislation takes precedence even over the commandment to build the Holy Temple." The words of Torat Kohanim do explain why the subject of building the Temple and the subject of Sabbath observance appear side by side; they do not, however, address the question why the Torah could not then have dispensed with mentioning this commandment in 19,3? Or, the commandment of building the Holy Temple should have been written in verse 3 instead of here. I believe that the commandment to observe the Sabbath is connected to what was written before rather than to the commandment to build the Holy Temple. Whereas the Torah commanded the father not to desecrate his daughter by instructing her to practice harlotry, the fact remains that some girls engage in that profession without being urged by their fathers to do so. When they do that they do not only desecrate their own name but they bring shame on the name of their fathers as well even though the father was quite innocent in the matter. This is why the Torah commanded the father to keep strict control of the movements of his daughter so that she will not prostitute herself. The Torah blames the father, i.e. the person who begot the child for the eventual misdemeanours of the child. The fact is that there are three separate causes which may be to blame for the delinquency of children. 1) If at the time of conception the father was bent on the physical pleasure of the union with his wife instead of being motivated purely by the desire to fulfil G'd's commandment to be fruitful when they had marital relations. As a result, the child born from such a union may inherit a tendency to engage in sex for gratification of a biological urge. 2) The cause may be the mother; if the deeds of the mother are not morally good, "the lamb will tend to become like the sheep which has given birth to it" (compare Ketuvot 63). 3) If both father and mother had forbidden thoughts at the time they conceived the child. The classic example is King Chiskiyah and his wife (the daughter of the prophet Isaiah) who produced two great sinners from that union (compare Sanhedrin 104). The tragedy of that incident is the fact that though both father and mother were pillars of piety they nonetheless produced such issue. The words את שבתותי תשמרו are addressesd to possibility number one, similar to something the Zohar explains on Isaiah 56,4: לסריסים אשר ישמרו את שבתותי, "as to the eunuchs who have chosen to observe My Sabbaths" (volume 2 page 89). The "eunuchs" referred to are the righteous people who make eunuchs of themselves by refusing to have...

את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbaths;” this is to be understood in accordance with Rashi’s interpretation, i.e. even though in Exodus 31,13 we have been warned concerning this in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle, i.e. that that commandment does not override the prohibitions in place on the Sabbath, it needs to be repeated as that structure is most holy and permanent. ומקדשי תיראו, “and you must revere My Sanctuary;” as a result of this, אל תפנו אל האובות ואל הידעונים, “you must not turn (for help) to ghosts or unfamiliar spirits; seeing that you have access to G-d through the Temple, what possible use could you have to address yourself to such unreliable sources of information?” [Even after Moses’ death you have access to G-d through the breastplate on the chest of the High Priest and the jewels on it, to receive answers to your (the High Priest’s) enquiries.] An alternate interpretation of ומקדשי תיראו; you are to consider My commandments as sacred. All the commandments are associated with the concept of holiness, sanctity. If we needed proof of this, all we have to do is look at the next paragraph 20,3: למען טמא את מקדשי, where G-d’s commandments are referred to as His “Sanctuary,” followed by ולחלל את שם קדשי, “and to desecrate My Holy Name.” If the word מקדשי were to be translated literally as “My Sanctuary,” we would have a duplication in that verse. Hence it is clear that it refers to “My holy people,” for what desecration of the Temple could be performed if someone had worshipped the Molech by making his children walk through fire.

את שבתותי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו, “you are to observe My Sabbath days and you are to revere My Sanctuary.” According to the plain meaning of the text the verses which repeat the warnings to observe the Sabbath are similar to those that warn not to commit idolatry. The reason for this is that Sabbath observance is equivalent to not serving idols. By the same token, failure to observe the laws of the Sabbath is considered as sufficiently heretical to be equivalent to the practice of idolatry. A Midrashic approach: why did the Torah use different verbs when describing our relationship to the Sabbath on the one hand and to the Sanctuary on the other? We could have thought that the Torah wants us to be afraid of that which is holy, i.e. of the Sanctuary. To ensure we do not make this mistake the Torah wrote: “observe My Sabbath days,” i.e. we are not to be afraid of the Sanctuary but of who the Sanctuary belongs to, i.e. G’d. He who commanded us to observe the Sabbath is the One who commands us to relate with a feeling of awe and reverence to the Sanctuary seeing it is His. In the event I might think that this law applies only while the Sanctuary is actually standing, the Torah writes this law in the same breath as that of Sabbath observance. Just as the Sabbath is an eternal institution, so the commandment to relate with awe and reverence to the Sanctuary (i.e. its site) is not dependent on the actual building which serves as the Sanctuary. A further exegesis mentioned in Torat Kohanim (Sifra Kedoshim chapter 7, 7-8) is: “I could have thought that at a time when the Sanctuary is to be erected this commandment supersedes that of the Sabbath laws, therefore the Torah wrote “you must observe My Sabbath days“ (in the same verse). A kabbalistic approach: I have already explained the words את שבתתי תשמרו when they were first written in Exodus 31,13, as well as at the beginning of this paragraph in 19,3. At this point an additional exegesis is called for due to the Torah adding the words ואת מקדשי תיראו, “and revere My Sanctuary.” We have to remember that the first time the Sabbath observance is mentioned it refers to the “great” Sabbath, i.e. the observance under the heading of זכור, “to remember,” i.e. an active Sabbath observance. The second time it refers to the מקדש, i.e. the passive observance by the כנסת ישראל, the concept of the Jewish people, the “bride” of the Sabbath. When that aspect of Sabbath observance by the כנסת ישראל is described the Torah employs the term שמר, i.e. את שבתתי תשמרו. Seeing that the passive aspect of the Sabbath observance is meant there obviously cannot be a question of the building of the Sanctuary (something active) taking place on the Sabbath.

את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbaths;” the reason why this exhortation, not the first of its kind, has been written here immediately following laws about sexual chastity is reminiscent of the Talmud Kidushin 81 where the social separation of men and women is discussed and Avin is on record as saying that if one allows men and women to mingle socially one furthers unchaste conduct and worse. He considered the time when the Israelites went up to the Temple to celebrate the festivals as the most dangerous of such opportunities. The parallel with the Sabbath is clear. On the Sabbath, social gatherings are encouraged, wine flows freely, and therefore the opportunities to become guilty of unchaste behaviour are multiplied on that day. Hence the Torah issued a special warning to be on guard against violating sexual mores on the Sabbath. Immediately after the warning not to allow the Sabbath to entrap you into forbidden contact, the Torah writes:

Do not turn after necromancers and mediums; do not seek after them to be defiled by them. I am Hashem your God.

אל תפנו DO NOT TURN [TO THE אבת NOR TO THE ידענים] — This is a warning addressed to the necromancers and the charmers themselves (not to the people who consult these tricksters). The בעל אוב, the controller of the spirit אוב, as the necromancer is called (cf. I Samuel 28:7), is identical with the פיתום (in Greek: πύξωυ); he is one who speaks out of his arm-pit; ידעני is one who puts a bone of an animal the name of which is ידוע into his mouth and the bone speaks (Sanhedrin 65b). אל תבקשו means DO NOT SEEK to busy yourselves with them, for if you busy yourselves with them, you will become defiled in My sight and I shall abhor you. אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Just think Whom you are changing (by these practices which lead to idolatry) for whom! (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 11)

The reason for mentioning the mediums and the wizards — on account of the dead; and so Isaiah writes: "for the sake of the living [they consult] the dead" (Isaiah 8:19). "Ha-ovot" ["mediums"] — derived from "like a new wineskin [ke-ovot ḥadashim]" (Job 32:19), for that is the core of this craft. "Ve-ha-yiddonim" ["wizards"] — derived from daʿat ["knowledge"], for they seek to know future events. Empty-headed people have argued: if the mediums were not real, and likewise the way of sorcery, Scripture would not have forbidden them. I say the opposite of their words, for Scripture forbids only falsehood, not truth — and the evidence is the idols, the carved images. And if I did not wish to be lengthy, I would explain the matter of the woman who is a medium [baʿalat ov] with conclusive proofs. The meaning of "do not turn" — [i.e., do not turn] to one who knows the craft. The meaning of "do not seek" — to inquire, as Saul did. The meaning of "I am Hashem your God": that you should seek none other than Hashem alone; and [Scripture] mentioned [the phrase] "to become defiled by them," for the soul that turns and seeks [such things] is defiled, as it is not cleaving to Hashem.

Seeing that the seeking out of oracles such as the ov or yidoni for the gentiles is something akin to enquiring about their fate from G’d, and it involves instead of consulting the living G’d consulting the dead or their remains, the Torah prohibits this in the strongest terms saying אל תפנו אל האובות, meaning not only must you not turn toward them, but you must turn your back on them and on any other phenomena similar to them. The Torah does not need to add that no respect or deference must be shown to such phenomena. אל תבקשו לטמאה בהם, do not search them out as they would confer spiritual contamination on you. However, the Talmud did permit us to study the manner in which these phenomena are being used when the objective is merely to understand the phenomenon, not to make use of it. [based on Deuteronomy 18,9 as interpreted in Shabbat 75. Ed.]

אל תפנו אל האובות, “do not turn to the sorceries that follow, etc.” [if I understood the author correctly. Ed.] “Do not have social intercourse with these sorcerers even on the Sabbath, thinking that since they do not practice their art on the Sabbath that this is harmless. Ibn Ezra writes that this is a warning not to do what King Sha-ul did near the end of his reign in desperation, when he asked a sorcerer to conjure up the deceased prophet Samuel’s image (Samuel I 28,7) The word אובות is derived from Job 32,19 וכאובות חדשים יבקע, describing skins filled with wine that are full to bursting. בעלי אובות, those soothsayers are like people who cannot wait to reveal the knowledge they believe that they possess. The word ידעוני, is related to דעת, knowledge, and also describes these supposedly knowledgeable people who foretell future events. The Torah adds that the result of turning to such soothsayers will be לטמאה בהם, “to become contaminated by them.” Any person, soul, who turns to such charlatans in order to divine the future will lose whatever degree of cleaving to Hashem it had achieved prior to this. The reason for this is: אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I alone am the Lord your G’d.” You are not to look for refuge with anyone other than I.

Before one who is learned in the Torah you shall rise, and you shall honor the presence of the elder, and you shall be in awe of your God. I am Hashem.

מפני שיבה תקום THOU SHALT RISE UP BEFORE A HOARY HEAD — One might think this reverence is also due to an ignorant old man! Scripture however says זקן — "thou shalt honour the face of the ״זקן — and זקן denotes only one who has acquired wisdom (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 12;Kiddushin 32b). AND THOU SHALT HONOR THE FACE OF THE OLD — What does the term "honoring” an old man imply? That one should not sit in his seat nor contradict his statements. One might think that one is allowed to close one’s eyes as though one does not see him (the old man)! Scripture however states "but be afraid of thy God”, because in this thing it is given to the heart of him only who does the action to know the motive that prompts him for no one has an insight into this except himself, and in reference to any thing where it is given only to the heart to know, Scripture states “and thou shalt be afraid of thy God Who knows thy secret thoughts״ (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 7 14; Kiddushin 32b).

THOU SHALT RISE UP BEFORE THE HOARY HEAD. “I might think that one is to rise before an uncultured old man; Scripture therefore states, and thou shalt honor the face of ‘zakein’ (the old man). Zakein [from the root kanah, acquire] means only one who has ‘acquired’ wisdom.” This is Rashi’s language. And the text of the Torath Kohanim, as it is taught in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin [is as follows: “I might think that one is to rise before an uncultured old man;] Scripture therefore states zakein, the word zakein meaning only one who is wise, as it is said, Gather unto Me seventy men ‘miziknei’ (of the elders) of Israel. And Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: The word zakein means only one who has ‘acquired’ wisdom, as it is said, The Eternal ‘kanani’ (made me) [literally: acquired me, i.e., wisdom] at the beginning of His way.” Now according to the words of both of them [i.e., the First Sage in this Beraitha and Rabbi Yosei the Galilean], this commandment [of honoring the aged] applies only if he is a scholar. And Onkelos who rendered the verse before us: “thou shalt rise up before him who understands [the knowledge of] the Torah, and honor the face of the aged,” would also seem to agree with this opinion [that zakein is one who “acquired” wisdom]. Yet despite all this, the concluding opinion of the Gemara in accordance with the final decision of the law is not so, for the Rabbis have said [in the Gemara]: “Isi the son of Yehudah says: Any hoary head is included [under the terms of this commandment], and Rabbi Yochanan said: The final decision of the law is as Isi the son of Yehudah interpreted it.” Thus Scripture is commanding [in the first half of the verse] to honor any old man, even the uncultured, that is, the unlearned, and then [in the second half of the verse] it gives another commandment concerning the zakein, that is one who has acquired wisdom, even if he be young and learned. It is possible that this is also the opinion of Onkelos, except that he translated the hoary head as “young and learned” [and hence the first half of his translation reads, “thou shalt rise up before him who understands — the knowledge of the Torah,” meaning even if he is young and learned], since the term zakein [in the second half of the verse, which clearly means “one who has acquired wisdom”] came and indicated that the term hoary head includes all kinds of old age, whether old in the knowledge of the Torah or old in days.

The reason for mentioning "before the aged you shall rise" — on account of the dead, for the elderly person is close to death; his body is considered as [already] dead. The meaning then is: every elder and every person with gray hair. The meaning of "and you shall fear your God" — that He will punish you in your days of old age.

מפני שיבה תקום, while it is in order to show respect and deference to someone whose experience in life is based on his age, this does not compare to the respect and deference that we must show to פני זקן, the elder who has achieved his rank in society due to his Torah knowledge, his constant striving to become more closely attached to G’d. (compare Kidushin 32.)

מפני שיבה תקום, "You shall rise in the presence of an aged person, etc." Kidushin 32 explains that the word שיבה refers to someone advanced in years, whereas the word זקן refers to someone who has acquired wisdom. The word תקום means to rise as a sign of respect, והדרת פני. The wording in the Talmud is difficult as in order to correspond to what the Talmud says the Torah should have written: מפני שיבה ומפני זקן תקום והדרת. Perhaps the Talmud intended to distinguish between different signs of recognition to be accorded to physical maturity, old age, and to spiritual maturity, i.e. זקנה. In the former case it suffices to rise from one's seat momentarily, whereas in the latter case one is to remain standing for longer; the idea is that זקנה, spiritual maturity, rates a greater degree of recognition than שיבה, mere physical old age. We may also take our cue from Bereshit Rabbah 65,9 where we are told that Abraham asked to look old in order that he could be told apart from his son Isaac who resembled him greatly (based on Genesis 24,1 ואברהם זקן). When the Torah says to rise on account of a man aged in years, this is the way to be מהדר, to lend distinction to someone like Abraham who was advanced in years. There may also be an allusion here to the statement in Bereshit Rabbah 12,6 that one of the consequences of Adam's sin was that he lost in "height," i.e. that the wicked do not attain their full height or that they shrink in height. G'd therefore commanded Adam to be sure to repent his error and to mend his ways so that he could attain his full stature. Our sages said in Yevamot 50 that if one possesses the necessary merit one is granted the full number of years allocated to him (70 or more) at birth; if one has not lived in accordance with G'd's commandments one forfeits some of these years and dies before one has completed the normal lifespan of 70 years. The word קומה therefore does not represent physical height but spiritual height. The measure of the verse then is: "if you want to reach a good old age, attain the spiritual height you are meant to attain!" The verse challenges each individual to develop to his full spiritual potential as much as it directs us to display honour for people who have attained old age. Inasmuch as Kohelet 12,1 has already told us that old age is frequently accompanied by afflictions so that one curses those years, the Torah suggests that the way to head off these frequent by-products of aging is to תקום, rise to one's spiritual stature מפני, on account of what might otherwise befall one in old age. Once one reaches that stage, one becomes totally dependent on G'd's personal and beneficial providence. The words והדרת פני זקן may even allude to one's own old age; our sages (Sukkah 53) are on record as saying about themselves: "hail to our youth which has not shamed our old age;" they referred to the kind of old age in which one can recall that one had led an exemplary life already from one's youth so that no one cou...

מפני שיבה תקום, “in the presence (arrival) of a biologically old person you shall rise.” This regulation applies even to an aged person who is totally uneducated, unaware of Torah laws and consequently often contravenes them. Onkelos translates the word לא תשם in Genesis 47,19 as לא תבור, “let it not become like a בור, “uncouth, uncultured.” In other words, he thinks that all biologically aged people deserve this measure of respect. The words והדרת פני זקן, “you shall honour the presence of a sage,” on the other hand, is a sign of much greater respect. Our sages understand the very word זקן as an acronym of the words זה שקנה חכמה, someone who has acquired wisdom. They base this interpretation on Proverbs 8,22: ה' קנני ראשית דרכו, “the Lord has acquired me (endowed me with wisdom) at the beginning of His way.” At any rate at this point the words of Onkelos suggest that he understands both the word שיבה and זקן as people possessed of varying degrees of wisdom due to their age, the former less than the latter. The former may be proficient only in the written Torah, the latter also in the oral Torah.

You shall rise before the gray-haired and show deference the face of the elder. It appears that “showing deference” is greater than “rising,” as rising is included within showing deference. Likewise, being an elder [zaken] is more esteemed than being gray-haired [seivah], for it is worth considering why our Sages, of blessed memory, interpreted “zaken” as “one who has acquired wisdom” (Kiddushin 32b) instead of taking it literally. The Sages found it difficult that showing deference is more important than rising; yet it is more fit to honor the gray-haired rather than the elder, since a 60-year-old is considered an elder while a 70-year-old is considered gray-haired. The explanation must be that the reason for honoring the gray-haired is because of the wisdom typically found in them more than in others, as it is written With the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days understanding (Job 12:12). Therefore, Issi ben Yehuda said that all gray-haired people are included, even the unlearned (Kiddushin 32b), since wisdom is more likely found in them than in others, and they deserve honor for their wisdom. Nevertheless, the elder who has actively acquired wisdom and strived for it — as the term “acquired” implies effort on the part of the acquirer who labored to obtain it, referring to the intellect that a person acquires — is certainly more deserving of honor than the gray-haired person whose wisdom came naturally with age, “for many days will they speak about wisdom.” And according to what we find regarding honoring one’s father, mother, and teacher, that the Holy One, blessed be He, equated their honor to His honor, and fear of them to fear of Him (Kiddushin 30b), you might say that just as honoring the elderly and the sage is incumbent upon you, so too fear of them is incumbent upon you. Therefore, the verse states and you shall fear your God — specifically, fear of your teacher should be like fear of Heaven, for he is called your God, as it says See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), and as our Sages of blessed memory said The Lord your God you shall fear includes Torah scholars (Pesachim 22b). This speaks specifically about fear of your teacher. And the reason they called him zaken [elder/sage] as a compound word is to inform that after he has acquired his perfection in few days, he is like a seventy-year-old man.

ויראת מאלוקיך אני ה', “you shall be in awe of your G’d, I am Hashem.” Ibn Ezra sees in our verse a warning by G’d that if we fail to accord honour and accord dignity to the elderly, He may punish us for this in our own old age. Other commentators see in the statement a reminder that these elderly have been honoured by G’d with attaining long life and wisdom, and it would not do for us not to accord them at least the same recognition that G’d has shown them. They back up their approach by quoting Isaiah 24,23 ונגד זקניו כבוד, “and the Presence (of G’d) will be revealed to His elders.”

And if a resident alien sojourns with you in your land, you shall not wrong him.

לא תונו [AND IF A STRANGER SOJOURN WITH THEE IN THY LAND], YE SHALL NOT VEX HIM — This implies vexing him with words (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20) — do not say to him, “Yesterday you were an idolator and now you come to study the Torah which was given from the mouth of the Almighty!” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 2; Bava Metzia 58b, 59b.)

"When a stranger sojourns with you" — he is mentioned after the aged; the meaning is: just as I have warned you to honor the aged Israelite because he lacks strength, so too I warn you concerning the stranger, whose strength is less than yours — or because he has no power, being in your land under your authority.

After the Torah warned that the Torah scholars, etc., must be shown due respect, it also warns us not to treat with disdain people who are on the lower rung of the economic ladder. וכי יגור אתך גר לא תונו אותו, even if this unfair treatment consists only of words, not deeds.

וכי יגור אתך גר, "And if a proselyte sojourn with you in your land, etc." The Torah commences with the singular, i.e. אתך, amongst you (sing), while switching to plural, i.e. ארצכם, "your country" (pl); the reason is that proselytes have been attracted to Judaism through the original proselyte, the first Jew, Abraham, the "spiritual father" of all proselytes. Another factor in attracting pagans to convert to Judaism is the Holy Land itself. We perceive all the souls of the converts as having been "captured" souls which had been ensnared by Satan either in bulk as a result of Adam's sin or individually on subsequent occasions. The word אתך alludes to Abraham's ability to attract converts, the word ארצכם to the ability of the land of Israel itself to exert such an influence. This verse also contains an allusion to the manner in which the שכינה remains with us in this life. Accordingly, the "alien" referred to is the One whose original home was in a different, i.e. celestial domain. G'd commanded His presence to take up residence within each individual Jew as mentioned in Psalms 78,60: אהל שכן באדם, "a tent which He established within (amongst) man." ארצכם, in your land; this is a reference to the Holy Land, the home of G'd's presence. It left its home to take up residence on earth. כאזרח מכם, This is a warning for strangers in the land of Israel to convert to Judasim.

וכי יגור אתך גר, “if someone lives amongst you who claims to be a convert, I might have thought that he must be accepted as such on his own testimony; therefore the Torah adds the word: אתך, “with you,” i.e. you are familiar with him and he has behaved in a manner which lends support to his claim. He needs to support his claim by witnesses. (Sifra)

וכי יגור אתך גר, “and if a proselyte shall reside amongst you,” The reason why the Torah saw fit to write this verse immediately after having told us to treat our native born elderly with dignity and respect, is that G’d draws a comparison between the former and the latter, both being people who by circumstance are somewhat handicapped, one by age and frailty, the other by not yet having established his self-worth in the new nation he has joined. Other opinions see in the sequence of how to respect elders and not to discriminate against proselytes a message that anyone who discriminates legally or otherwise against proselytes offends the Creator Who instructed us to be especially courteous to the elderly.

As a native-born among you shall the resident alien who sojourns among you be to you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. I am Hashem your God.

כי גרים הייתם FOR YE WERE STRANGERS [IN THE LAND OF EGYPT] — "Do not reproach thy fellow-man for a fault which is also thine” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20). אני ה' אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Thy God and his God am I! (אלהיכם “your” God — the God of both of you).

"And you shall love him" — this is self-evident.

כאזרח מכם, "he shall be like a natural-born resident amongst you." Here the Torah reveals the mystical dimension (i.e. their spiritual status) of all the souls of the Jewish people while they were submerged in Egypt and its culture amongst the various nations. This is why the Torah describes them as "like one of your very own," i.e. you have much more in common with converts than you think. Should you query how it is possible that the seed of wicked people, someone whose father was a Gentile, could suddenly be rated as equal to people whose fathers were beloved of G'd, the Torah reminds us כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, "that the souls of these strangers (converts) were intertwined with those of your own when you were still in Egypt." Please read what I have written on this subject in Parshat Yitro on 20,2 (page 673) and the meaning of "I have taken you out of Egypt, etc." What applied to that situation also applies to the situation described here. The "stranger" who was part of the קליפות, the spiritually negative domain, has come to take refuge under the wings of G'd's שכינה. As of now his soul has returned to its holy roots. Once we adopt this approach it is clear that when the Torah speaks of כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, "for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt," the Torah compliments the converts. If the Torah were concerned only with the conversion of people whose souls were never attached to sanctity and whose bodies now wanted to become part of the families of the Israelites, it is hardly likely that they would suddenly become beloved by G'd seeing that their family background is so different. Jewish families are not comparable to Gentile families. The only reason these proselytes are embraced wholeheartedly by the Torah is that the Torah views these converts as people who are returning to their roots.

כאזרח מכם, “as if a natural born Jew.” Just like a natural born Jew is expected to observe all the laws of the Torah, so is this convert expected to do so. This verse is the reason why the sages ruled that if a convert is prepared to accept all the laws of Judaism with the exception of one, he is not accepted as a convert. Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Yehudah said that even if the prospective convert refuses to accept any of the nonbiblical protective clauses of the Torah he is not to be accepted. (Sifra) כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, “for you were treated as strangers while in Egypt.” Rashi comments on this phrase that we must not be critical of a shortcoming of a stranger and treat him as second class, as we did not like it when we were treated as second class during the hundreds of years we were in Egypt. While there we worshipped the same idols that the Egyptians had worshipped, so that we have nothing to feel superior about. Joshua reminded the people of this shortly before his death in (Joshua 24,14)

You shall not commit a perversion of justice in judgment, in measurement, in weight, or in measure.

לא תעשו עול במשפט YE SHALL NOT DO UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IN משפט — If this has a reference to the execution of justice it would be redundant, for it has already been stated (v. 15) “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment”. What, then is the meaning of משפט mentioned here? It refers to what is right in respect to measure of length, to weight and to measure of capacity. The use of the word משפט here teaches us, therefore, that one who has to do with measuring (in trade or commerce) is termed (is regarded as) “a judge” so that if he gives false measure he is like the judge who perverts justice and he is therefore called "an unjust person” (עַוָּל), hateful, detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination (cf. Rashi v. 15). He brings about those five things which are mentioned in connection with the judge who perverts justice: he defiles the land, profanes the Name of the Lord, causes the Shechinah to depart from Israel's midst, Israel to fall by the sword and to be exiled from their land (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 5). במדה — This denotes land measure (linear and square measure); במשקל is what the word literally implies (“in weight", from שקל, to weigh); ובמשורה — This denotes liquid and dry measure (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 6; Bava Metzia 61b).

The meaning of "you shall not commit injustice" — on account of the stranger; similar in meaning to "you shall judge justly between a man and his brother and his stranger" (Deuteronomy 1:16). And so with measure — you shall not practice deceit in the measure of lengths, for also the [standard] lengths vary [from place to place], and it is possible that the meaning is: according to the accepted standard measure in the land.

לא תעשו עול במשפט במדה במשקל ובמשורה, seeing that the term אונאה, unfair dealings, also includes unfair business practices, the Torah issues a general prohibition concerning this addressed both to the locally born Jew and the recent convert, or stranger. The words used include measures for measuring liquids, dry matters, as well as the use of deceptive weights.

ובמשורה, “or in measure.” Our sages used this expression when they said that water should be drunk “in measured quantities (sparingly);” (Ethics of our Fathers 6,4)

לא תעשו עול במשפט, “Do not commit a perversion of justice.” This prohibition has already appeared in almost the identical words in 19,15 in connection with the poor who was not to be given preferential treatment. In that instance the “justice” referred to was in connection with social legislation which had been spelled out by the Torah (legislating nationally). Here the Torah writes a similar warning concerning internationally accepted norms such as weights and measures. It is reminiscent of Exodus 15,25 “there He gave them statutes and social laws.” That legislation too preceded the giving of the Torah, i.e. laws designed to regulate the people’s life in the desert. במדה, “concerning measure.” This applies to division of the land in Eretz Yisrael (Baba Metzia 61). The Talmud there discusses brothers who share in their father’s inheritance and who have measured the tract of land of one brother in the winter using a rope which is wet because of the time of year. When measuring the tract of land for the second brother in the summer, they must not use the same rope as the sun would have shortened the length of that rope to the disadvantage of the second brother. במשקל, “concerning weights.” One must not dunk one’s weights in salt causing them to lose actual weight due to corrosion (compare Baba Metzia 61 and Baba Batra 89). Dunking the weights in salt would result in loss to the purchaser. There are variant readings which suggest that the weights become heavier; in that event this warning would be addressed to the purchaser and not to the seller. ובמשורה, “or volume measures.” Our sages in Baba Batra 89 explain that the seller must not heat up the item (liquid) he is selling to give it an inflated measure by volume. As soon as the liquid cools down it will be found deficient in measure. According to Rashbam there this may apply to the foam which forms on top of a heated liquid filling the measure deceptively. Therefore, the seller has to wait after he has filled the measuring device until the liquid in question has cooled before making sure that he has measured fairly. He needs to make good any shrinkage due to previous overheating. Another aspect of this law is that the seller must not pour at great speed into the measuring device as this too would create foam depleting the real amount of liquid given to the buyer. Air bubbles are not allowed to be counted as part of the liquid dispensed. According to our sages the measuring tube called משורה is used to measure small quantities. If even when the loss to the purchaser in objective terms is minimal the Torah is concerned with such a loss, how much more will the Torah frown on someone dispensing in a similar manner into a large measuring container where the total loss to the purchaser is much greater! The reason the Torah mentioned משורה as an example was that one transgresses this law already at the time one heats the product in question even if no sale had been made as yet and one cannot be accused of trying to defraud a specific person, prospective purchaser. Even when the seller has not yet poured into his משורה, the fact that he heated the product he was going to sell makes him guilty of attempted fraud. Just as the sages said that one is guilty for possessing faulty weights from the time one has manufactured them, even if one has not used them, so one is guilty of tampering with the liquids to be sold even if no buyer is at hand. It recalls what Solomon said in Proverbs 20,9: ”who can say I have made my heart pure, I am free from sin ?” “False weights and false measures are both alike, an abomination to the Lord.” Just as man becomes culpable for evil intentions [if they were subsequently carried out, Ed.] even while he had not yet carried out the felony, so he will be held responsible for making false weights and measures. Our sages said in connection with idolatry that a person is subject to the curse of G’d already at the time he fashions an idol even though he has not yet worshipped it (compare Avodah Zarah 52 and Deut. 27,15). In the case of idolatry culpability also commences with construction of the idol based on Deut. 9,21 where he Torah writes: ואת חטאתכם אשר עשיתם את העגל, “and your sin that you committed- the calf.” The Torah therefore wrote משורה, to let us know that if an amount as little as a פרוטה, a tiny coin, is affected by the inaccurate measuring device, the person involved is liable to punishment as soon as he heated the liquid involved. Rabbi Levi said in Baba Batra 88 that penalties applied to people cheating with weights and measures are more severe than those applied to people guilty of sexual offenses, seeing that such people can repent their sins as long as no mamzer, “bastard,” has been born out of such a union [at which time the sin becomes irreversible, Ed.] Seeing that the practice of unfair weights and measures is indiscriminate in its application, the guilty party does not know whom he has cheated and he therefore cannot make restitution. Repentance without restitution is no proper repentance.

לא תעשו עול במשפט, ”do not pervert the judicial process.” According to Ibn Ezra the verse refers especially to treatment of proselytes, as the reason why the Torah felt it necessary to write ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו, “judge righteously between a man and his brother, and between his fellow who is a proselyte, or even a resident alien!” (Deut. 1,16)

במדה, measures of length used to measure fields. משורה, a measure used to measure liquids. Our sages use this expression when speaking of measures of water in Avot 6,4.

Honest balances, honest weights, an honest dry measure, and honest liquid measures shall you have. I am Hashem your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.

אבני צדק are stones used for weights wherewith one weighs. איפת — The “Epha” is a certain dry measure. והין — The “Hin” is a certain liquid measure. אשר הוצאתי אתכם WHO BROUGHT YOU FORTH [FROM EGYPT] for this purpose, that you shall be honest in your actions (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 10). Another explanation is: I distinguished in Egypt between those who were firstborn and those who were not firstborn (a matter which is hidden from human cognizance), I am also certain to exact punishment from him who secretly puts his weights in salt in order to take advantage of people who are not aware of it (cf. Bava Metzia 61b).

"Honest scales, honest weights" — meaning: with respect to [the measurement of] weight. "An honest ephah" — for dry [goods]. "And an honest hin" — for liquid; meaning: with respect to [the measurement of] volume. The meaning of "I am Hashem your God who brought you out" — because He mentioned that you were strangers in the land of Egypt, you are therefore obligated to keep My statutes and ordinances in your hearts and to do them.

הין, another measure used for measuring liquids.

And you shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances, and do them. I am Hashem.

The meaning of "I am Hashem": that you should pursue the statutes that I have set within you, for they are all righteous.

ושמרתם את כל חקותי ואת כל משפטי, study them so that you will become aware of how fair they are. ועשיתם אותם, through your study of both My statutes and My social legislation you will become impressed with their worth so that you will observe them and carry them out as a result of having gained greater insight of their meaning. 'אני ה; the Torah means to remind us that observance of G’d’s laws must be because they are G’d’s laws, i.e. we must not add or detract from the details of these laws in the mistaken belief that we would improve them by our additions or subtractions. Seeing G’d Himself is surely perfect, how could His legislation be any less than perfect?

ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “you are to meticulously observe all My statutes;” this was repeated here once more as it sums up the chapter.