Verse structure: 4 words, 18 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה, 4 letters) and the longest is "and·spoke" (וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר, 5 letters). 4 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "saying" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus); "and·spoke" (root דבר, 76x in Leviticus). Full calculation: וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר [and·spoke] (222) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה [to·Moses] (376) + לֵּאמֹֽר [saying] (271) = 895.
Onkelos
And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:
Ibn Ezra
The reason why "Hashem spoke to Moses, saying" [is introduced again here]: because these commandments are obligatory upon all Israel, and no resident alien is excluded from them — therefore it was written earlier, "to the entire congregation of Israel." Now [the Torah] begins to mention the punishment for sexual immorality upon anyone who dwells in the Land of Israel, whether a native-born citizen or a resident alien, commencing with the most severe of them all: the one who gives of his seed to Molech. The meaning [of that sin] is [as if] he lies with a worshipper of idolatry.
Chizkuni
וידבר ה, “the Lord spoke;” the reason why this chapter begins with G-d speaking in strong language, i.e. דבר, is because what follows are a series of death penalties for people who have deliberately ignored the warnings of the laws enumerated in the previous two chapters.
Moreover, you shall say to the children of Israel: Whoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives of his seed to Molech; he shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
verse value 6632
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 83 letters. The shortest word is "people·of" (עַ֥ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·to·sons·of" (וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֣י, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 541: Israel, Israel. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "they·shall·stone·him" (יִרְגְּמֻ֥הוּ). The root בן appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "who" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·to·sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root רגם ("they·shall·stone·him") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·put·to·death', dividing the verse into phrases of 16 and 4 words.
Onkelos
And to the children of Israel you shall say: Any man, whether of the children of Israel or of the converts who have converted among Israel, who gives of his offspring to Molech shall surely be put to death; the people of the house of Israel shall stone him with stones.
Rashi
ואל בני ישראל תאמר AGAIN THOU SHALT SAY TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL the punishments for the transgression of the prohibitions mentioned in the previous chapters. מות יומת HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH by sentence of the court; and if the court has not sufficient authority to carry this out, then, 'וכו עם הארץ the people of the land shall assist them (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 4). עם הארץ THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH — that people for whose sake the earth was created: Israel (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:1); or, that people which is destined to remain in possession of the Land (Canaan) through obedience to these commands (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 4).
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "the people of the land": the land in which he dwells — whether he is a native citizen or a resident alien. And this [applies when the act is done] publicly.
Sforno
אשר יתן מזרעו למולך, after the Torah had explained G’d’s plan to sanctify the Israelites in order for them to become as much like Him as is possible for any creature, and He taught them the path to take to achieve such an aim, it now warns of a lifestyle which could produce the opposite result. The Torah now discusses the penalties that would befall three specific categories of people who defy the Torah and take a different path toward what they perceive to be their success in life on this planet. People guilty of these practices would contaminate their souls beyond redemption. Category one are people who follow mistaken philosophies, a prime example being people who follow the cult of the Moloch. In verse 3 the Torah spelled out the spiritually negative consequences of following this cult with the words למען טמא את מקדשי, “this would counteract My declared purpose of sanctifying (you)”. Category two, the relying on such oracles as ov and yidoni have already been described as spiritually contaminating in 19,31 with the words אל תבקשו לטמאה בהם, “do not attempt to become spiritually contaminated by them.” In 18,24-25 the Torah had already drawn attention to the fate which befalls the [previous inhabitants of the land of Canaan being due to their relying on such oracles. The third category of spiritually counterproductive practices is the ingesting of the kind of food that the Torah outlawed in Leviticus chapter 11 and the negative results of violating these laws are repeated again in verse 25 of our chapter והבדלתם...ולא תשקצו את נפשותיכם לטמא וגו', “separate yourselves…do not become detestable…to spiritually contaminate yourselves.” In Parshat Emor the Torah speaks of a different kind of spiritual (ritual) contamination which is caused mostly passively through contact directly or indirectly with dead human bodies. It also discusses physical blemishes, especially of priests, which disqualify such people from carrying out their duties in the holy precincts of the Temple. However, the legislation in that portion concentrates on the impediment such kind of ritual (spiritual) contamination represents when the afflicted party handles sacred matters, sacrificial flesh, etc., in any shape or form. Other aspects are the abuse of such sacred objects which as well as incestuous marriages, i.e. contaminating the pure semen a person has been born with by incestuous sexual relations with forbidden partners. Here the Torah begins with the desecrating of one’s semen by sacrificing it to the abominable Moloch cult. The penalty to be applied to people guilty of this sin, which is perpetrated in public, is עם הארץ ירגמוהו באבן, the people at large are to stone the father to death. Only by the expression of jealousy on behalf of G’d can such a sin be wiped out, seeing it had a potentially spiritually negative effect on the entire nation. Naturally, the penalty by the hand of man is applied only if there was testimony by valid witnesses to the deed and the per...
Or HaChaim
ואל בני ישראל תאמר, "Moreover, you shall say to the children of Israel, etc." The reason for the expression "and to the children of Israel" is that all of them are to be involved in executing anyone who hands any of his children to the fire-god Molech. The conjunctive letter ו at the very beginning of the paragraph hints that not only the person who delivers a child to the Molech is guilty of punishment but also those who fail to punish such a person.
Chizkuni
באבן , “using a stone” The use of the singular for the word “stone” means that only if the first stone has failed to kill the convicted sinner the public is going to throw any further stones. (Sifra)
Rabbeinu Bahya
אשר יתן מזרעו למולך יומת עם הארץ ירגמוהו באבן, “who gives of his seed to the Moloch, shall be executed, the people of the land shall pelt him with stones.” The Talmud Sanhedrin 64 sees in the word מזרעו as opposed to כל זרעו, “of his seed,” instead of “all his seed,” a restrictive clause, i.e. that if a father gives all his children to this god he is not liable to execution at the hands of man. This does not mean that he goes free, on the contrary, if he is executed for giving some of his children to that god his execution is his expiation provided he accepts the judgment and repents. When he has given all his children to that god he is not afforded the opportunity of atonement until after he dies and is consigned to gehinom, purgatory. A person who has reached the depth of deprivation by consigning all his children to the fire-god Moloch is not entitled to execution as a means of cleansing himself of his sin. Seeing that he does not have available to him such a method of expiating for his sin he will carry his sin to the grave with him and will remain guilty forever. [Rabbi Moshe ben Rabbi Yaakov Mikutzi, in his Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot on negative commandment 40 writes in a similar vein. The author of that work preceded our author by close to a century. Ed.] The guilt of such a person is so deeply engraved in his soul that it parallels the examples of which the Torah had written הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “this soul shall be cut off again and again, it will continue to bear its guilt” (Numbers 15,31). The reason the Torah writes מות יומת, which sounds like a repetition, is that in the first instance it is up to the court to execute such an individual. Should circumstances be such that the court lacks the power to carry out the death penalty, the common people are encouraged to do this on their own. In the two scenarios just mentioned the situation was judicially clear-cut, i.e. there had been valid witnesses and the culprit had been properly cautioned before committing the deed. In the event that there were legal snags which made a conviction of such a person impossible, the Torah writes in verse 3 “and I (G’d) will set My face against such a man and will exterminate him from amongst his people.” This refers to such situations as the deed being committed in secret when no witnesses were present at all, or a situation where the deed had been witnessed but the people do not care and do not testify against such a person. This may be due to their fear of revenge by family members of the guilty person or to other considerations. G’d means that He will not only intervene against the actively guilty party who “murdered” his children under the guise of a religious ceremony, but also against the silent onlookers who agreed with this cult. To make this wider application of G’d’s retributive arm clear, the Torah repeats in verse 5 that “I will set My face against such a man and his family and I will exterminate him and all those who stray after him.” Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim section three chapter 37 concerning the practice of the Moloch-cult, writes as follows: the fire-worshippers in those days engaged in all kinds of endeavors to strengthen the hold their religion exerted on its followers by claiming that people who refrained from offering their sons or daughters as potential sacrifices to that god would see their children die. There is no question that the fathers who worshipped that cult were not motivated by cruelty but by the utmost concern for their other children. They hoped to satisfy their god with a token offering so that the remainder of their children would not only not be harmed but would be blessed by that deity. They encouraged the child to run the gauntlet of the fire hoping the child would escape unharmed. The cult was performed with very young children, children under the constant supervision of their mothers. Seeing that women are easily influenced by horror tales, these women were ready victims of all these kinds of threats and warnings if they did not allow at least one of their children to pass between the two fires dedicated to the Moloch. Keeping this in mind, the Torah addressed itself to this particular form of idolatry more than to any others knowing how vulnerable the mothers of children are to tales of horror concerning the retributive powers of that deity. To demonstrate the extreme concern of the Torah with this cult the Torah wrote the additional words למען טמא את מקדשי ולחלל את שם קדשי, “in order to defile My Sanctuary and to desecrate My holy Name” (verse 3). The Torah tells us that he who worships that cult hoping to sacrifice only one of his children will have all his children destroyed by G’d as a result. This is what is meant by verse 5. G’d’s retribution always fits the crime. Thus far Maimonides. I had written on 18,21 that some commentators believed that the “passing through fire” mentioned resulted in the child in question being burned to death as the child would be made to pass between the flames repeatedly. Maimonides did not understand the procedure in that way. He thought that the chances of the child being burned to death during the procedure were remote. If he is correct then the words of Deut. 13,31 which clearly speak of parents burning their children must refer to a different cult.
I also will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given of his seed to Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name.
verse value 6222
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 77 letters. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֤י, 2 letters) and the longest is "my·sanctuary" (אֶת־מִקְדָּשִׁ֔י, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "I·will·give" (אֶתֵּ֤ן), "and·to·profane" (וּלְחַלֵּ֖ל). The root נתן appears 2 times in this verse. 18 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "defiling" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "from·among" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "that" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·people', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 10 words.
Onkelos
And I will direct My wrath against that man and cut him off from among his people, because he gave of his offspring to Molech, in order to defile My sanctuary and to profane the Name of My holiness.
Rashi
אתן את פני is taken in the sense of, פנאי שלי, My leisure — I shall turn away from everything else that I am occupied with, and will busy Myself with him alone (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:10). באיש AGAINST THAT MAN — but not against the whole congregation if they thus sin (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13), for the community as a whole is never punished with excision. כי מזרעו נתן למלך BECAUSE HE HATH GIVEN OF HIS SEED TO THE MOLECH — These words appear to be redundant since in v. 20 the nature of the sin is already mentioned, but because Scripture states (Deuteronomy 18:10) “[There shall not be found among you] any one that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire", one might think that this law applies only to ones children; whence do we know that it applies also to one’s son's son and one's daughter’s son? Because Scripture states here, “because he hath given of his offspring to the Molech". Whence do we know that illegitimate offspring are also included in this law? Because Scripture states again (v. 4) “when he giveth of his seed to the Molech” — whether legitimate or not (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 6-7; Sanhedrin 64b). למען טמא את מקדשי TO DEFILE MY מקדש — This means the “Congregation of Israel" which is sanctified to Me. The word מקדש does not imply the Sanctuary only but anything that is holy to God, as in the expression (Leviticus 21:23) “that he profane not my holy things (מקדשי).
Ramban
BECAUSE HE HATH GIVEN OF HIS SEED UNTO MOLECH, TO DEFILE MY SANCTUARY — “The congregation of Israel which is sanctified unto Me.” This is Rashi’s language. I have already hinted at this, how on account of one man’s sin the congregation of Israel which is sanctified to His Great Name can become defiled. And the Sages have [also] already hinted at this in their homiletic interpretations when saying: “He who enjoys anything of this world without saying a benediction, is considered as if he had robbed the Holy One, blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel, as it is said, Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith: ‘It is no transgression,’ the same is the companion of a destroyer. The expression his father refers only to the Holy One, blessed be He, and his mother refers only to the congregation of Israel. The same is the companion of the destroyer, he is a companion of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin, against their Father in heaven.” For the purpose of Creation was that people should offer their benediction over [its bounties] to the Great Name, assuring thereby the existence of the world, but if that is not done, the Great Name is raised on high and the Divine Presence is removed from Israel, and surely this happens all the more so when a person offers his seed to the Molech, and thereby causes that He abhor the pride of Jacob and His dwelling place [i.e., the Sanctuary]. This is the meaning of the expression, the people of the Land shall stone him with stones, for He did not say: “he shall surely be put to death; they shall stone him with stones,” as is mentioned in all such cases, but instead mentions the people of the Land, meaning to say that all the people of the Land — all Israel — are obliged to precede to stone him, for [having given of his seed to Molech] he has harmed everybody, because he has caused that the Divine Presence be removed from Israel. It is for this reason that Onkelos translated [the expression, the people of the Land]: “the people of the house of Israel,” for the term the Land alludes to the whole Land of Israel, not merely the land wherein the worshipper [of the Molech] happens to reside, this being similar [to the expression], for all the earth is Mine. The secret thereof you will also be able to understand from that which Scripture mentions with reference to [the punishment of] excision for worshipping the Molech, I also will set My face against that man, and again, then will I set My face against that man, meaning that My Great and Fearful Name will cut him off. The word “I” He did not mention in the case of excision for practicing the sorcery of the ov or the yide’oni, nor in the case of any other such punishment. I have already stated the reason for all this to all who understand.
Ibn Ezra
"And I will set My face against that man" — [this applies] if it was done in secret. Some say that its meaning is that He will cut off his offspring. "In order to defile My sanctuary" — because it is within the Land of Israel. "And to profane My holy Name" — because the nations will hear. It appears to us that the sense of "with stones" [in verse 2] denotes the species, as in "I have ox and donkey" [i.e., it denotes the species]. The words of tradition are correct and they are true. Rabbi Yonah, the Spanish grammarian, of blessed memory, said that the interpretation of "and his family" is: one similar to him. But what has brought us into this difficulty is only the plain-sense interpretation, for the people of the land turn a blind eye because he is from their family.
Sforno
ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, if he does not refrain from carrying out his evil intention and does not become a בעל תשובה, a repentant sinner. Otherwise, even his judicial execution will not expiate for his sin. והכרתי אותו, seeing he has already been executed, these words refer to G’d excising this man’s soul’s share in the hereafter. למען טמא את מקדשי, by removing My presence from Israel, resulting in the people deserving to be stoned. ולחלל את שם קדשי, therefore I will turn My face against him even though he did not actually engage in idolatry.
Or HaChaim
ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, "And also I Myself will set My face against that person, etc." What further punishment does G'd have in mind seeing the guilty party has already been executed by a human tribunal? I believe the Torah informs us that in addition to the physical death of that person by execution there is further punishment in store for his soul. This is alluded to by the words והכרתי אותו מקרב עמו, "I will cut him off from amongst his people." This is a reference to the holy root from which all Jewish souls emanate. The Torah explains the reason for these two punishments and writes: 1) "for he has given of his seed to Molech in order to defile My Sanctuary" 2)…"and to desecrate My holy name." The execution of the sinner's body is the retribution for defiling the Sanctuary, the destruction of the sinner's holy roots is retribution for profaning the Lord's name.
Chizkuni
ואני אתן את פני, “and I will turn My face against that man;” G-d will do this if he cannot be brought to court as there were no witnesses, or if he had not received legal warning of the consequences of committing the sin he had been warned not to commit. (Ibn Ezra)
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, “and I will set My face against that man.” Nachmanides points out that this is the only time in the entire Torah that the attribute אני for G’d appears in connection with the karet penalty. The reason is that G’d feels that by following this abominable cult the sinner has defiled the great Name and thereby defiled the entire concept of כנסת ישראל, what the Jewish people symbolize. Our sages in Berachot 35 have compared someone enjoying the fruits of this world without first reciting a benediction giving thanks to G’d for the availability of such fruit as stealing from G’d. They based this on Proverbs 28,24: ”whoever robs his father and mother and says: ‘it is no sin,’ is a companion of a destroyer.” The “father” Solomon speaks of may be understood as our father in heaven. The “mother” Solomon refers to is the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the Jewish people. We have seen the prophet Isaiah 50,1 use that simile for the Jewish people when he said: “ובפשעכם שלחה אמכם, “on account of your sins your mother was dismissed.” The words “companion to the destroyer” refer to King Jerobam who caused Israel to become corrupted to their father in heaven. If Jerobam who merely blocked the way to Jerusalem is described in such terms how much more so must a father who offers his children (fruit of his loins) as a sacrifice to the Moloch cause estrangement between G’d and His people! Thus far Nachmonides. In the course of his remarks Nachmonides explained to us that in most instances when the Torah mentions the name of אני it refers to the attribute of Justice, whereas in this instance it represents the attribute of Mercy because it is written in connection with the word פני, “My face.” We find a similar example of the word אני as the attribute of Mercy in Genesis 6,17 as there too it is written in connection with the word לפני in verse 13; a similar construction occurs in Exodus 6,5 where the name אני evidently refers to the attribute of Mercy. It is clear there from the context that the word אני does not refer to the attribute of Justice. [When G’d said there that He had heard the pleas of the Israelites this is equivalent to saying that their pleas had come לפני, “before Me.” Ed.]
Tur HaArokh
ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, “and as for Me, I will give My special attention to that man;” Ibn Ezra writes that this statement presupposes that the sin was committed in the privacy of the sinner’s house or secretly, as otherwise judicial steps have to be taken by the court. Some commentators understand this wording to imply that G’d is going to single out the offspring of that person for extinction. למען טמא את מקדשי, ”(he had done what he did) in order to defile and desecrate My Sanctuary, etc.” Rashi feels that in this instance the word מקדשי refers to the whole of the Jewish people, seeing they have been declared a holy people, עם קדוש, by G’d Himself. Conduct, such as that of the person who worships the Moloch deity, results in the presence of the Shechinah leaving the Jewish people, thus depriving them of their status of being a holy nation. This is also the reason why in this instance the Torah demands that the death penalty by stoning be administered by the עם הארץ, “the people for whose sake the earth had been created,” whereas in other similar executions the Torah simply writes באבן ירגמו אותו, “they are to stone him,” without appending a specific subject to who those “they” are. Seeing that the man worshipping the Moloch had put at risk every single Israelite’s status in the eyes of the Creator, they all have to demonstrate their disapproval of that sinner by throwing a stone or stones at him.
And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and put him not to death;
verse value 4358
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 62 letters. The shortest word is "people·of" (עַ֨ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "their·eyes" (אֶת־עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙, 8 letters). 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "truly·hide" (הַעְלֵ֣ם), "they·shall·hide" (יַעְלִ֩ימֽוּ֩), "their·eyes" (אֶת־עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙). The root עלם appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "from·the·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus); "when·he·gives" (root נתן, 86x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Molech', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֡ם [and·if] (47) + הַעְלֵ֣ם [truly·hide] (145) + יַעְלִ֩ימֽוּ֩ [they·shall·hide] (166) + עַ֨ם [people·of] (110) + הָאָ֜רֶץ [the·land] (296) + אֶת־עֵֽינֵיהֶם֙ [their·eyes] (586) + מִן־הָאִ֣ישׁ [from·the·man] (406) + הַה֔וּא [that] (17) + בְּתִתּ֥וֹ [when·he·gives] (808) + מִזַּרְע֖וֹ [from·his·offspring] (323) + לַמֹּ֑לֶךְ [to·Molech] (120) + לְבִלְתִּ֖י [not·to] (472) + הָמִ֥ית [putting·to·death] (455) + אֹתֽוֹ [him] (407) = 4358.
Onkelos
And if the people of the house of Israel truly avert their eyes from that man when he gives of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death —
Rashi
ואם העלם יעלימו AND IF [THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND] DO ANY WAYS HIDE THEIR EYES [FROM THE MAN] — If they hide their eyes in one thing they will in the end hide their eyes also in many other matters (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 9); if the Small Sanhedrin (a judicial court of twenty-three) hide their eyes, in the end the Great Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court of seventy-one) will also hide their eyes (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 11).
Or HaChaim
ואם העלם יעלימו עם הארץ, "And if the people at large choose to ignore, etc." The reason the word "they will ignore" is repeated is to tell us that if the people choose to ignore the first time this abominable crime is committed, they will have paved the way for ignoring all subsequent repetitions of this abomination. Even if they would want to punish people then for practicing this cult, the guilty party would challenge the authorities pointing out that the first guilty party had been allowed to get away with this practice. Alternatively, the first word העלם refers to the failure of preventing the father from carrying out his intention to sacrifice his son to the Molech; the second יעלימו refers to the failure of the people to bring such a father to justice.
then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, to go astray after Molech, from among their people.
verse value 5671
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 73 letters. The shortest word is "I" (אֲנִ֧י, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·all·who·go·whoring" (וְאֵ֣ת כׇּל־הַזֹּנִ֣ים, 10 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·I·will·set" (וְשַׂמְתִּ֨י), "and·in·his·clan" (וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּ֑וֹ), "and·all·who·go·whoring" (וְאֵ֣ת כׇּל־הַזֹּנִ֣ים). The root זנה appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "from·among" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "that" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "in·the·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·in·his·clan', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 9 words.
Onkelos
then I will direct My wrath against that man and against his supporters, and I will cut him off, and all who stray after him to go astray after Molech, from among their people.
Rashi
ובמשפחתו [THEN I WILL SET MY EYES AGAINST THAT MAN], AND AGAINST HIS FAMILY — R. Simeon asked, "But how did his family sin that it should be punished?" But the family is mentioned to teach you that you may take it as a rule that there is no family in which there is one tax-collector (a calling held in great reprobation by Jews) which may not be regarded as consisting entirely of tax-collectors, for they all try to protect him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13; Shevuot 39a). והכרתי אתו AND I WILL CUT HIM OFF — Why is this stated (it appears to be a mere repetition of the statement in v. 3)? Because since Scripture says here for the reason stated above, “[I will set My face…] against his family", I might think that the whole family is also doomed to excision; Scripture therefore states “[I will cut] him [off]"— he alone is subject to excision, but the whole family is not subject to excision but to bodily sufferings (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 14; Shevuot 39a). לזנות אחרי המלך TO COMMIT WHOREDOM WITH MOLECH — This is intended to include the worship also of any other idol which he worshipped in this way (by letting his children pass through the fire in honor of it) even though this is not the manner of worship peculiar to it (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 15; Sanhedrin 64a).
Ramban
TO GO ASTRAY AFTER THE MOLECH. “This is intended to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way [i.e., by a person passing his children through the fire], even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way.” This is Rashi’s language. Now Rashi has already written in the section of Acharei Moth that the Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and this was the way in which it was worshipped: he would hand over his child to the priests etc.” But all this does not conform and agree properly with the Gemara’s conclusion as it appears after deliberation. For according to the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [and not a name for a form of witchcraft], the worship thereof was not by passing children through the fire, for if so there was no need at all for Scripture to mention this, [i.e., the passing through fire] since it would be included in the admonition against worshipping the idols [in the manner in which they are usually worshipped], of which there are many general prohibitions in the Torah, and it is also included in the punishment stated in the section If there be found in the midst of thee … man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the Eternal thy G-d, in transgressing His covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them. Rather, we must perforce interpret [if Molech is the name of a particular idol] that the essential purpose of Scripture in mentioning [this particular form of worship], was only to make one liable for passing one’s children [through fire] even if that particular idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. And thus the Rabbis have said in the Gemara: “And according to the Sage who is of the opinion that Molech is an idol, why did Scripture state [the punishment of] excision in the case of Molech [when it is already included in the general punishment for all idol-worship]? It is to apply it in the case of one who passes his son [through the fire in honor of any idol, even if that idol is] not ordinarily worshipped in that manner.” And the same reasoning applies to the punishment and the admonition which Scripture mentioned with reference to it [this particular form of worship], that they were only necessary [if we hold that Molech is an idol] for the case of one who passed his son [through fire] to an idol which is not normally worshipped in that manner. It would appear that according to this opinion [that the Molech was idol-worship, and that the main reason why Scripture mentioned this particular form of worship was to prohibit and punish the practice thereof even as an abnormal manner of worship of all other idols], that the term “Molech” is not a name for a particular graven image or statute, but is a general name for anything that is worshipped, “anything which you accept as your king and take upon you as your god.” In accordance with this opinion, the children of Ammon called their abhorrence Molech, because he was their ki...
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "and all who go astray after him": that if he is not put to death, others will go astray after him.
Sforno
ובמשפחתו, seeing that the people at large ignored his evil deed due to the sinner’s family covering up for him in the first place, thereby strengthening the hand of the perpetrator.
Or HaChaim
ושמתי אני את פני, "then also l will set My face, etc." The plain meaning of the text appears to be that if the people will not exact retribution then G'd will turn His wrath also against the whole family of that father. If the people had carried out the prescribed judgment, G'd on His part would have punished only the guilty individual. This seems a most unusual aspect of G'd's justice! If members of the family shared in the father's guilt why would G'd not punish them regardless of whether the father has been executed? We feel that the meaning of the verse is to tell us that whenever the judges appointed by G'd on earth fail to mete out justice, justice will be meted out in the celestial spheres. G'd announces this by saying: "I will set My face, etc." Once the heavenly tribunal opens the file of the accused, the files of his family members will be scrutinised at the same time. This is what the Torah meant by mentioning ובמשפחתו, "and against his family." The Torah explained in our verse that G'd's setting His face against the sinner would result in his being being cut off, plus all others who had gone astray by making common cause with the father. The files of the family members will be examined each on his own merit. Any family member who will not be found guilty of the Molech cult whether in deed or thought will not be wiped out. The Torah uses the words הזונים אחריו לזנות, "who go astray after him in order to go astray" (the Molech cult) in the present tense to tell us that even if they had not yet been guilty in deed they are considered as guilty as if they already had performed the abominable act. Ezekiel 14,5 expressed this thought more directly when he wrote למען תפש את בית ישראל בלבם, "in order to catch the house of Israel while (the sin) is still in their hearts." [We find independent confirmation of this in Chulin 142. Ed.] As a result of what we said we may intepret our verse as assuring us that if the people at large bring the guilty party to justice he alone will be punished and his family will not even be examined by the heavenly tribunal at that time. Should the people fail to get involved, G'd will involve the family of the sinner to the extent that they harbour thoughts similar to those of the father. If so, the family members will be punished by G'd for their ideology though they cannot, of course, be brought to trial on earth. This is the meaning of Devarim Rabbah 5,4 that "in a place where there is judgment there is no judgment, whereas in a place where there is no judgment there is judgment." The difficulty with this saying is that it is obvious that when judgment is carried out in our world that there is no need to carry out judgment in the celestial spheres. Why would the Midrash have to tell us something so obvious? When you follow our approach, however, the Midrash makes sense as the judgment in the celestial spheres referred to is that of the family of the guilty party. You will find that our sages said in Rosh Hash...
Tur HaArokh
לזנות אחר המולך, “to stray after the Moloch.” When Rashi, following Torat Kohanim, writes that these words include anyone straying after other types of idolatry whose form of worship is of a similar nature or even of a different nature, he means that the reason why the Torah singled out this particular cult for expressing its extreme abhorrence, is that this form of idolatry is especially abhorrent. When such a cult is worshipped even in a manner not typifying the norms of worship for that particular idolatry, it still carries the death penalty of karet. Nachmanides writes that this is not so, seeing that according to the Talmud Sanhedrin 64 the penalty applicable to that cult is only for those who “crowns” that deity, looking up to it as a “king” [as implied by the word Moloch. Ed.]
And the soul that turns to the ghosts, and to the familiar spirits, to go astray after them, I will even set My face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
verse value 6255
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 72 letters. The shortest word is "that" (אֲשֶׁ֨ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·to·the·familiar·spirits" (וְאֶל־הַיִּדְּעֹנִ֔ים, 10 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "she·shall·turn" (תִּפְנֶ֤ה), "to·fornicate" (לִזְנֹ֖ת). The root נפש appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "from·among" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "that" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'after·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 8 words.
Onkelos
And the person who turns to those who divine by the dead and those who consult the spirits, to go astray after them — I will direct My wrath against that person and cut him off from among his people.
Ibn Ezra
"The soul that turns to the Ovot" — its meaning is: just as I will cut off the one who gives of his seed to Molech, whether in secret or openly, if the people of the land do not put him to death, so too I will cut off the one who goes astray from after Me to turn to the Ovot. We find [the word] "souls" [נפשים], and also "every soul" — [occurring] fourteen [times] — and likewise "and I will cut him off" [in the singular].
Targum Yonatan
And the man who turns aside to inquire of the impostors, or to seek to bring up the dead, or to inquire by the bone of Jeddua, to go astray after them, I will appoint a reverse to punish that man, and will destroy him by a plague from among his people.
Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am Hashem your God.
verse value 2403 — יְהֹוָ֖ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 34 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֛י, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·you·shall·sanctify·yourselves" (וְהִ֨תְקַדִּשְׁתֶּ֔ם, 8 letters). The root קדש appears 2 times in this verse. 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "and·you·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "and·you·shall·sanctify·yourselves" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'holy', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְהִ֨תְקַדִּשְׁתֶּ֔ם [and·you·shall·sanctify·yourselves] (1255) + וִהְיִיתֶ֖ם [and·you·shall·be] (471) + קְדֹשִׁ֑ים [holy] (454) + כִּ֛י [for] (30) + אֲנִ֥י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם [your·God] (106) = 2403.
Onkelos
You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am Hashem your God.
Rashi
והתקדשתם SANCTIFY YOURSELVES — This implies keeping aloof from all idolatry (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 2).
Ibn Ezra
"Sanctify yourselves, for I am Hashem your God" — [He is] holy, and He has given you statutes to keep them in order to sanctify you. This verse has already been stated; the reason [for repeating it here] is to draw in the resident aliens dwelling with Israel, who are obligated to be holy because they dwell in a holy land.
Sforno
והתקדשתם, by staying clear of all incestuous relationships. והייתם קדושים, so that your seed will merit that the Divine Presence will dwell among the likes of him. Our sages are on record that “the Divine presence will rest only on those Jewish families that are genealogically pure.” (Kidushin 70) כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, the One Who said to Avraham “to be your G’d and that of your seed after you.” (Genesis 17,7) What was meant by the word לזרעך was the seed which is genealogically yours in an uncontaminated state. (as explained by Bamidbar Rabbah 12,4)
Or HaChaim
והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, "and sanctify yourselves so that you will be holy." G'd directs that we should strive to be holy; when people do this they are assured of attaining the spiritual level of angels who are called קדושים, "holy beings." We know this from Daniel 8,13 "ויאמר אחד קדוש," "one holy one said, etc." This is what is meant by והייתם קדושים. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 20, comment on Numbers 23,23 כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל אל. "at a time when Jacob as well as Israel is told at once what G'd had worked." They describe an outer circle of angels and an inner circle of Israelites. The angels who are standing in the outer circle are forced to ask the Israelites (who are closer to the centre) what G'd has been doing. This teaches that when the Bible speaks of "His holy ones" in a context of angels, the reference is to the Jewish people. In verse 8 the Torah specifies the means by which the Israelites are to sanctify themselves by saying: ושמרתם את חוקותי ועשיתם אותם. The word ושמרתם refers to observance of negative commandments, whereas the word ועשיתם refers to the performance of positive commandments. Between them the commandments are the means by which G'd will sanctify us. The Torah associates G'd's four lettered name י־ה־ו־ה with the performance of the commandments. The Tikkuney Ha-Zohar chapter 70 explain how by the performance of each commandment the respective organ with which that commandment is performed merits that G'd's name comes to rest on it, a concept alluded to in the letters of the word מצוה.
And keep My statutes, and do them: I am Hashem who sanctify you.
verse value 3763 — יְהֹוָ֖ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 34 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֖ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "them" (אֹתָ֑ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·you·shall·keep" (וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם֙, 6 letters). 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "who·sanctify·you" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus); "and·you·shall·do" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'them', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 3 words. Full calculation: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם֙ [and·you·shall·keep] (986) + אֶת־חֻקֹּתַ֔י [my·regulations] (919) + וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם [and·you·shall·do] (826) + אֹתָ֑ם [them] (441) + אֲנִ֥י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם [who·sanctify·you] (504) = 3763.
Onkelos
And you shall observe My statutes and do them. I am Hashem who sanctifies you.
Sforno
ושמרתם את חקותי ועשיתם אותם, the only way you can ensure that this degree of your sanctity continues throughout the generations is by ensuring your meticulous observance of the עריות legislation. If you were to fail to do this, your children, or some of them being born from a sinful, spiritually contaminated union, would already have these strikes against them from birth, making it so much harder for them to attain their G’d-set goal to achieve the level of sanctity expected of them. Compare David’s reference to the subject in Psalms 51,7 where he considers the fact that one’s mother may have not have had the purest thoughts when cohabiting with her husband as already resulting in her child being born in sin, בעון חוללתי. אני ה' מקדשכם, by forbidding you incestuous relationships I G’d have actively helped you in your attaining this sanctity, holiness.
Chizkuni
ושמרתם את חקתי, “you are to observe My statutes;” this is a repetition, as previously the subjects covered had only been incest and the mixing of species in order to create new strains, etc. Now the statutes mentioned were types of idolatry.
For whatever man there be that curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
verse value 3399
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 51 letters. The shortest word is "in·him" (בּֽוֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "his·father" (אֶת־אָבִ֛יו, 6 letters). 7 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "when·a·man" (כִּֽי־אִ֣ישׁ), "curses" (יְקַלֵּ֧ל), "his·father" (אֶת־אָבִ֛יו). The root איש appears 2 times in this verse. 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "who" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "when·a·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus); "his·bloodguilt" (root דם, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·put·to·death', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 5 words. Full calculation: כִּֽי־אִ֣ישׁ [when·a·man] (341) + אִ֗ישׁ [man] (311) + אֲשֶׁ֨ר [who] (501) + יְקַלֵּ֧ל [curses] (170) + אֶת־אָבִ֛יו [his·father] (420) + וְאֶת־אִמּ֖וֹ [and·his·mother] (454) + מ֣וֹת [surely] (446) + יוּמָ֑ת [shall·be·put·to·death] (456) + אָבִ֧יו [his·father] (19) + וְאִמּ֛וֹ [and·his·mother] (53) + קִלֵּ֖ל [has·cursed] (160) + דָּמָ֥יו [his·bloodguilt] (60) + בּֽוֹ [in·him] (8) = 3399.
Onkelos
For any man who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father and his mother — he is liable to death.
Rashi
אביו ואמו קלל HE HATH CURSED HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER — These apparently redundant words are intended to include as subject to the death penalty one who curses his parents after their death (Sanhedrin 85b). דמיו בו HIS BLOOD IS UPON HIM — This implies execution by stoning; similarly wherever the expressions דמיו בו or דמיהם בם occur. We learn this Halachic rule from the case of אוב and ידעוני of whom Scripture expressly states, (v. 27) [“they shall surely be put to death], they shall overwhelm them with stones, their blood is upon them (דמיהם בם)” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 7; cf. Sanhedrin 54a; Keritot 5a). But according to the literal sense of the passage it means the same as the expression דמו בראשו (Joshua 2:19): “[whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street his blood shall be upon his own head] (דמו בראשו)” where the meaning is: No one deserves punishment on account of his death except himself, for he brought it upon himself that he should be killed (i. e. it was his own fault).
Ramban
FOR WHATSOEVER MAN THERE BE THAT CURSETH HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER. The meaning thereof is that it refers back to the beginning of the section where He stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and He now states here, for whatsoever man there be that does not obey [this commandment] and curseth his father, or his mother, he shall surely be put to death, and by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], this verse is here stated because He had said [above], Sanctify yourselves therefore, and by ye holy; for I am the Eternal your G-d, and I am the Eternal Who sanctify you, meaning that it is the Glorious Name Who sanctifies us, for He is our Father, and our Redeemer from everlasting, and it is His Name; therefore he who curses those who participated in his formation, is liable to death. This is the reason for the law [of the punishment] of the adulterer and adulteress, [in the following verse], which He placed near here before [the law of] all forbidden relations [mentioned further on in this section]. I have already alluded to this above. Now Scripture mentions here some of the forbidden relations in order to make [one who has intercourse with them] liable to death, these being a man’s wife, a father’s wife, a daughter-in-law, a male, a woman and her mother, and the same law applies to a woman and her daughter and her daughter’s daughter, for He mentioned here only some of the relations of a wife, but the same punishment applies to all those mentioned there in the admonition. And surely this applies all the more so to one’s own relatives, such as his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter mentioned there, and needless to say, his [own] daughter. On all these matters there are also Rabbinical interpretations to establish their punishment. Similarly He mentioned here the punishment of death for lying with a beast. He mentioned excision again in the case of a menstruant [although this has already been included in a general statement above, 18:29], in order to declare him liable for mere sexual contact without completion of the act, this being the sense of the expression, he hath bared her fountain. Similarly [He has stated] in the case of a mother’s sister and a father’s sister, for he hath bared his near kin. He mentioned an uncle’s wife and also a brother’s wife, in order to declare them liable to [the punishment of] dying childless, whether he had no children at the time when he commits the sin, or he did have [in which case none will survive him]. But the excision mentioned in the case of one’s sister is redundant [being included in the general statement above, 18:29], and has therefore been interpreted by our Rabbis: “Why was excision specified in the case of a sister etc.” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture [excision was specified in the case of a sister] in order that Scripture should add [that it will be done] in the sight of the children of their people, meaning to state that their soul will peri...
Ibn Ezra
[The Torah] begins to mention the punishment for those written at the beginning of the parashah — starting from [the case of] the father — as it had begun [the earlier passage] with "a man, his mother and his father you shall fear." The reason that the father is mentioned before the mother here is on account of his honor; and this [case] is unlike [the earlier phrase] "his mother and his father you shall fear," for [there] he is not put to death if he has not yet reached the age of bar mitzvah. "Who curses his father" — [this phrase] draws itself along with the next one, and so too: "and who curses his mother." The meaning of "his father and his mother he has cursed" is as if to say: he has done a great abomination. "His blood is upon him" — like "his blood is upon his head." And for those who are stoned and those who are strangled, their blood is upon them. The general principle is that for all modes of execution we require the tradition of our fathers, for we cannot derive them from Scripture; likewise, the age at which one becomes bar mitzvah is not written [in Scripture].
Sforno
כי איש איש אשר יקלל, proof that I, G’d, am so insistent that your sanctity be manifest by your seed being genealogically pure is that the penalty for non observance is the execution of the person who curses his parents. The normal scenario which leads to a son or daughter cursing their parents has to do with legitimacy or otherwise of their offspring. When a son or daughter are the product of unions forbidden under the laws of incest, children of such unions have little reason to practice the commandment to honour their parents as it was from their parents that they learned to ignore Torah legislation. Solomon’s well known instruction שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך, “heed the moral instruction of your father, and do not ignore the teachings of your mother” (Proverbs 1,8) are most difficult to honour when they know they have seen the light of day only because their parents chose to ignore this very instruction.
Or HaChaim
כי איש איש אשר יקלל, "for any man whatsoever who curses, etc." Why did the Torah commence this verse with the word כי, a word which indicates that the reason for something is to be found in what had been discussed previously? How is the fact that someone might curse his father or his mother related to what the Torah described in the previous verses? Moreover, why did the Torah have to repeat the word איש? Torat Kohanim claims that if the Torah had written the word איש only once I would have assumed that the prohibition applies only to males and not to females. As a result the Torah was forced to repeat the word איש איש to include everybody in this prohibition. This is most perplexing. Why would anyone have doubted that this commandment applies also to females? We have learned repeatedly that negative commandments apply equally to males and females and that the penalties are the same for both males and females (compare Baba Kama 15). If the Torah did not feel comfortable with the choice of the word איש, it could simply have written the word אדם and I would have known that both males and females were being addressed. Furthermore, why did the Torah repeat the words: "for he has cursed his father or his mother?" I believe that the key to all this is in the previous commandment concerning someone who subjected a son or daughter to the cult of the fire-god Molech. In that instance the Torah was careful to make the culprit culpable only if he sacrificed "some of his own seed." Nothing was said about someone inducting someone else's offspring to the cult of that fire-god. According to that verse if someone sacrificed his brother, sister, or other relative to the fire-god he would not be punishable. In fact we have the following Baraitha in Sanhedrin 64 which states: "he is not guilty (of punishment) unless he committed this abomination with a direct descendant of his." Thus far the Baraitha. We have to explain why there should be a penalty for inducting one's offspring whereas doing the same thing with one's other relatives is not punishable. The reason may be that one's children are considered as if they were part of a person's assets. This is why there is a direct relationship between someone who sacrifices his possessions to an idol such as passing his child through the fires of the Molech cult. When one does a similar thing with people who are not considered as his possessions the idol to whom one presents such a sacrifice remains unimpressed When the idol remains unimpressed so does G'd; seeing one did not"sacrifice" his dearly beloved possessions to an alien deity. We know from Baba Metzia 7 that even when one sanctifies one's property for G'd one cannot do so unless one owns what one has sanctified. In view of all this a person may say that a father does not own his child outright seeing that the mother is an equal party. The Talmud in Niddah 31 tells us that father and mother are partners in the child they produce, the father having contribute...
Chizkuni
כי איש אשר יקלל את אביו, “for the man who curses his father, etc.” this refers to the warning issued previously. The Torah is saying that if I had warned you not to curse father or mother or belittle them, how much more so does this warning apply to Me, Who have been a partner in creating your father and mother. את אביו, “his father,” but not his grandfather. את אמו, “his mother,” but not his grandmother. אביו ואמו קלל, “he had cursed his father;” the reason this has been repeated (apparently) is because the Torah wants you to know that seeing the son is the product of both father and mother, i.e. of two strains of blood, he is treated even if he only cursed one of them as if he had cursed both of them. This is reflected in the plural mode of the words דמיו בו, “he is guilty of having cursed their blood,” at the end of our verse.
Tur HaArokh
כי איש אשר יקלל את אביו, “for any man who curses his father, etc.” According to Nachmanides this line is a continuation from the commandment in 19,2 to revere one’s parents. There the commandment had been expressed as a positive commandment, whereas here it is reinforced as a negative commandment, telling us what is in store for people who not only ignore 19,2, but who engage in doing the opposite. Alternately, the Torah draws our attention to the harshness of the penalty by reminding us that G’d commanded us to sanctify ourselves. Anyone who curses G’d’s “partners,” i.e. our parents who helped bring us into this world, has thereby frustrated the Creator’s design and deserves a suitable punishment. This, after all, is also the penalty for marital infidelity, etc.; the underlying concept is similar in all such cases. Abstention from incestuous and promiscuous behaviour furthers G’d’s plan to sanctify our world, whereas violating His laws concerning chastity does the opposite. The positioning of our verse here immediately after the imperative to become holy is quite natural then. Some commentators understand this sequence in a somewhat narrower frame, i.e. verses 9 and 10 respectively as being justified by the simple fact that the mamzer, bastard, product of incestuous relationship does not recognize his father and mother as such, and therefore is liable to curse them. The Torah now lists some of the laws of incest already detailed in chapter 18, in order to spell out the penalties for them, especially those that constitute a capital sin. These include sleeping with one’s father wife, any woman married to another man, one’s daughter-in-law, and indulging in homo-sexual relations, sleeping with a woman and her daughter, including her granddaughter. This was not spelled out, as only some of the woman’s relatives have been spelled out. Clearly, if sleeping with one’s granddaughter is a capital offence so is sleeping with one’s daughter. Naturally one’s own relatives are also included in the list of incestuous relationships subject to the death penalty. One’s aunt and the wife of one’s brother are singled out to remind us that this is forbidden on pain of death even if it is clear that no issue could result from their unions, i.e. that they would die childless, (verse 20). Some more relatives need not be listed specifically as culpability for illicit relations with them has already become clear when more distantly related relatives have been for bidden on pain of death either by tribunal or at the hands of G’d. The reason why, when mentioning the penalty of karet, the Torah adds the enigmatic words לעיני בני עמה, “in the sight of members of her people,” (verse 17) is because this is the Torah’s way of saying that the guilty party will die in her youth, thus enabling the survivors to reflect on the cause of her early death, and for this to act as a deterrent. The meaning of the words עונם ישאו, commonly translated as: “they will have to carry the burden of their sin,” is that the sin will stick to both of the guilty parties like glue from that moment on, and will result in their various endeavours and enterprises in life all failing to be successful. The reason why the Torah repeats the prohibition of a man to sleep with his own wife when the latter is in a state of niddah, menstrual bleeding, is to inform us that the karet penalty applies on such union even if the coitus has not been completed. דמיו בו, ”his blood is upon himself.” The meaning of this expression is similar to דמו בראשו, “his blood is on his own head.” The same applies to someone who lies in an adulterous manner with someone else’s wife. He is no less guilty than someone who has cursed father or mother.
Rashbam
דמיו בו, his blood is on his own head. He made himself guilty of the death penalty.
And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
verse value 5977
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 52 letters. The shortest word is "which" (אֲשֶׁ֤ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "shall·surely·be·put·to·death" (מֽוֹת־יוּמַ֥ת, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 1102: with·the·wife·of, with·the·wife·of. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "his·fellow" (רֵעֵ֑הוּ), "shall·surely·be·put·to·death" (מֽוֹת־יוּמַ֥ת), "the·adulterer" (הַנֹּאֵ֖ף). The root נאף appears 4 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus); "with·the·wife·of" (root אשה, 75x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root נאף ("he·shall·commit·adultery") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·fellow', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֗ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֲשֶׁ֤ר [which] (501) + יִנְאַף֙ [he·shall·commit·adultery] (141) + אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת [with·the·wife·of] (1102) + אִ֔ישׁ [man] (311) + אֲשֶׁ֥ר [which] (501) + יִנְאַ֖ף [he·shall·commit·adultery] (141) + אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת [with·the·wife·of] (1102) + רֵעֵ֑הוּ [his·fellow] (281) + מֽוֹת־יוּמַ֥ת [shall·surely·be·put·to·death] (902) + הַנֹּאֵ֖ף [the·adulterer] (136) + וְהַנֹּאָֽפֶת [and·the·adulteress] (542) = 5977.
Onkelos
And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man — who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow — the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Rashi
ואיש AND THE MAN [THAT COMMITTETH ADULERY SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — a man, thus excluding a minor (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8). אשר ינאף את אשת איש WHO COMMITTETH ADULTERY WITH ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE — a man's wife, thus excluding the wife of a minor from the death penalty. This teaches us that a minor cannot enter into a marriage contract. And in reference to what married woman do I make you liable to the death penalty? אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו IF HE COMMITTETH ADULTERY WITH THE WIFE OF HIS FELLOW-MAN — his fellow-man, thus excluding the wife of a heathen; this teaches us that a heathen cannot enter into a marriage contract according to Jewish law (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8; Sanhedrin 52b). מות יומת הנאף והנאפת THE ADULTERER AND THE ADULTRESS SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH — Wherever a death penalty is mentioned in Scripture without being precisely defined, only strangulation is intended (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8; Sanhedrin 55b).
Ibn Ezra
After that, [the Torah] mentions: "And a man who commits adultery with a man's wife" — for she had been forbidden. The meaning of "who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife" is like "his father and his mother he has cursed" — he has done an evil thing. "And the adulteress" — if she was coerced, she is not called by this name.
Chizkuni
ואיש אשר ינאף, “and a man who becomes guilty of adultery, etc.” the Torah repeats all the prohibitions listed already in the previous portion in chapter 18, and spells out the respective penalties for each type of transgression. Some of them are arrived at by the use of the g’zeyrah shaveh, one of the 13 tools used by Rabbi Yishmael in linking the written Torah to the oral Torah. [marrying, or sleeping with two sisters at the time when both are alive. (Sifra)] והנואפת, “and the woman who is a partner in the adultery.” If you were to ask where the warning was written concerning the woman adulteress, the answer is “the seventh of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20,12.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואיש אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו, “and the man who engages in an adulterous relationship with the wife of his fellow, etc.” our sages see in the word איש an exclusion of the death penalty for a minor between the ages of nine and thirteen who sleeps with the wife of a fellow Jew. In the words אשת רעהו they see an exclusion of the death penalty for someone who sleeps with the wife of a Gentile (compare Sanhedrin 52). The words אשת איש indicate that sleeping with the wife of a minor is also not subject to the death penalty. Our verse proves that a marriage ceremony entered into with a Gentile is not considered a legal marriage.
Rashbam
את אשת רעהו, excluding if he slept with a “wife” who was a gentile. The adulterer would then not face the death penalty.
And the man that lies with his father's wife — he has uncovered his father's nakedness — both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
verse value 4458
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 51 letters. The shortest word is "in·them" (בָּֽם, 2 letters) and the longest is "shall·surely·be·put·to·death" (מֽוֹת־יוּמְת֥וּ, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 19: his·father, his·father. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "shall·surely·be·put·to·death" (מֽוֹת־יוּמְת֥וּ). The root אב appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus); "their·bloodguilt" (root דם, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'uncovered', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֗ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֲשֶׁ֤ר [that] (501) + יִשְׁכַּב֙ [he·shall·lie] (332) + אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת [with·the·wife·of] (1102) + אָבִ֔יו [his·father] (19) + עֶרְוַ֥ת [nakedness·of] (676) + אָבִ֖יו [his·father] (19) + גִּלָּ֑ה [uncovered] (38) + מֽוֹת־יוּמְת֥וּ [shall·surely·be·put·to·death] (908) + שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם [both·of·them] (405) + דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם [their·bloodguilt] (99) + בָּֽם [in·them] (42) = 4458.
Onkelos
And a man who lies with his father's wife — he has uncovered his father's nakedness — both of them shall surely be put to death; they are liable to death.
Ibn Ezra
"He has uncovered his father's nakedness" — he has done a great thing [i.e., a grave offense].
Chizkuni
אשר ישכב את אשת אביו, “who engages in carnal relations with the wife of his father;” the reason for this choice of words is that it includes both the guilty person’s mother and a woman that at one time was his father’s wife, totally unrelated to him. How do we know that it also relates to his mother who had never been his father’s wife? When discussing the penalty for such a sexual union, the Torah writes here: ערות אביו גלה, “he revealed the nakedness of his father,” and it writes chapter 18,7 that he must not reveal the nakedness of his father;” it is clear therefore that just as there, by repeating that the prohibition is applicable to his mother as well as to his stepmother, so the same is true here by describing her as his mother; here too the same rule applies. According to the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 54 what is meant is a woman whom his father had raped, as a result of which she had become his mother. את אשת אביו, it says here: “he had uncovered his father’s nakedness [by sleeping with that woman, Ed] and it had said in chapter 18,8: “you must not reveal the nakedness of your father’s wife;” just as there “his father’s wife,” included carnal relations with his father’s widow (sleeping with here after she had become widowed) so in our verse it also includes such a scenario, i.e. legal execution of both parties involved, (Sanhedrin 54)
And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them.
verse value 4269
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 43 letters. The shortest word is "in·them" (בָּֽם, 2 letters) and the longest is "with·his·daughter-in-law" (אֶת־כַּלָּת֔וֹ, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "with·his·daughter-in-law" (אֶת־כַּלָּת֔וֹ). The root מות appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "they·have·done" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'both·of·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֗ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֲשֶׁ֤ר [which] (501) + יִשְׁכַּב֙ [he·shall·lie] (332) + אֶת־כַּלָּת֔וֹ [with·his·daughter-in-law] (857) + מ֥וֹת [surely] (446) + יוּמְת֖וּ [shall·be·put·to·death] (462) + שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם [both·of·them] (405) + תֶּ֥בֶל [perversion] (432) + עָשׂ֖וּ [they·have·done] (376) + דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם [their·bloodguilt] (99) + בָּֽם [in·them] (42) = 4269.
Onkelos
And a man who lies with his daughter-in-law — both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed an unnatural perversion (tevel) — they are liable to death.
Rashi
תבל עשו THEY HAVE WROUGHT תבל — i. e. they have done a shameful deed. Another interpretation is that תבל is connected with בלל to "intermingle" and signifies that they mingle (בּלל) the seed of the father with the seed of the son.
Ibn Ezra
"His daughter-in-law" — his son's wife. "Tevel" — I have already explained it.
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
verse value 4769
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 52 letters. The shortest word is "in·them" (בָּֽם, 2 letters) and the longest is "together·with·male" (אֶת־זָכָר֙, 5 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "together·with·male" (אֶת־זָכָר֙). The root מות appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "they·have·done" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'both·of·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֗ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֲשֶׁ֨ר [which] (501) + יִשְׁכַּ֤ב [he·shall·lie] (332) + אֶת־זָכָר֙ [together·with·male] (628) + מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י [as·one·lies·with] (372) + אִשָּׁ֔ה [woman] (306) + תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה [abomination] (483) + עָשׂ֖וּ [they·have·done] (376) + שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם [both·of·them] (405) + מ֥וֹת [surely] (446) + יוּמָ֖תוּ [shall·be·put·to·death] (462) + דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם [their·bloodguilt] (99) + בָּֽם [in·them] (42) = 4769.
Onkelos
And a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman — both of them have committed an abomination — they shall surely be put to death; they are liable to death.
Rashi
משכבי אשה means he inserts as a brush into a tube [i.e. in the manner of marital intercourse].
Ibn Ezra
"They have done an abomination" — [this applies] if the passive partner was not coerced.
Chizkuni
משכבי אשה, intercourse in the full sense of the word, not fondling or premature withdrawal of either party’s male organ. תועבה מעשה שניהם, both parties are guilty of an abomination (perversion), unless one party had been raped.
And if a man takes a woman and her mother — it is a scheme of depravity; him and them they shall burn with fire, and there shall be no scheme of depravity among you.
verse value 4925
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 59 letters. The shortest word is "that" (אֲשֶׁ֨ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·it·shall·not·be" (וְלֹא־תִהְיֶ֥ה, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 52: wicked·scheme, depravity. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·her·mother" (וְאֶת־אִמָּ֖הּ), "they·shall·burn" (יִשְׂרְפ֤וּ), "and·them" (וְאֶתְהֶ֔ן). The root זמה appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·it·shall·not·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 7 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֗ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֲשֶׁ֨ר [that] (501) + יִקַּ֧ח [he·shall·take] (118) + אֶת־אִשָּׁ֛ה [woman] (707) + וְאֶת־אִמָּ֖הּ [and·her·mother] (453) + זִמָּ֣ה [wicked·scheme] (52) + הִ֑וא [it] (12) + בָּאֵ֞שׁ [in·the·fire] (303) + יִשְׂרְפ֤וּ [they·shall·burn] (596) + אֹתוֹ֙ [him] (407) + וְאֶתְהֶ֔ן [and·them] (462) + וְלֹא־תִהְיֶ֥ה [and·it·shall·not·be] (457) + זִמָּ֖ה [depravity] (52) + בְּתוֹכְכֶֽם [in·your·midst] (488) = 4925.
Onkelos
And a man who takes a woman and her mother — it is a counsel of sins; him and them they shall burn with fire, and there shall be no counsel of sins among you.
Rashi
ישרפו אתו ואתהן [AND IF A MAN TAKE A WIFE AND HER MOTHER, IT IS WICKEDNESS] THEY SHALL BE BURNT [WITH FIRE] BOTH HE AND THEY — You cannot say that this means that they shall burn also his first wife (i. e. her whom he married first), because you must admit that he married her legally for she was not forbidden to him as a wife. But the fact is that the case of “a woman and her mother": mentioned here must be a case where both of them are forbidden to him on account of a previous relationship to him, — that, for instance, after having married a woman, he marries also his mother-in-law and her mother. It is these two that have to be burnt. There are, however, some of our Rabbis who say we have here a case of where, in addition to having married a woman, he marries only his mother-in-law (but not also the latter's mother). But what then could be the meaning of אתהן? It means one of them (“את "הן) and this is a Greek word, הן (ξυ) meaning “one" (Sanhedrin 76b; Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 12).
Ibn Ezra
"And a man who takes a woman and her mother" etc. — "it is zimmah" — like the meaning of harlotry in thought. "And them" [ואתהן] — this one or that one: if the mother was his wife, the daughter is burned; and likewise the reverse.
Chizkuni
ואיש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה, זמה היא, באש ישרפו .“if a man takes his mother in law as a sexual partner in addition to his wife, this is a perversion; they shall be executed by “burning;” (having molten lead poured into their throats.) How do we know from the wording of this verse that the same penalty applies to someone who engages in sexual relations with both his daughter and his granddaughter (by this daughter)? The sages use the principle known as g’zeyrah shavah, one of the 13 principles of valid interpretation expounded by Rabbi Yishmael in Torat Kohanim, [and recited in our daily morning prayers. Ed.] that when (for no otherwise compelling reason) the Torah used the same wording in discussing different subjects, it was in order to teach us that the details of these subjects have something in common halachically. In this case, it is the word: זמה, used for perversion here, and the same word used in chapter 18,17, where the subject was “mother, daughter, and granddaughter,” (including her son’s daughter) becoming the sexual partners of the same male. In other words, violating the laws expounded in either verse are punishable by the same type of death penalty, burning. How do I know that it does not matter in this respect if the biological relationships discussed here are based on the male or the female respectively? We find the expressions הנה, “they are,” and the expressions זמה, “perversion” both in18,17, where it describes the biological relationships of the parties involved by the word שאר, which loosely translated means “family relation.” The subject is elaborated on in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 76, where different methods of legal executions are discussed, with emphasis on the penalty of “burning.” (B’chor shor, also)., “perversion
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and you shall slay the beast.
verse value 4040
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 40 letters. The shortest word is "which" (אֲשֶׁ֨ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·the·cattle" (וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה, 8 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "his·copulation" (שְׁכׇבְתּ֛וֹ), "you·shall·kill" (תַּהֲרֹֽגוּ). The root בהמה appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus); "he·shall·give" (root נתן, 86x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·put·to·death', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֗ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֲשֶׁ֨ר [which] (501) + יִתֵּ֧ן [he·shall·give] (460) + שְׁכׇבְתּ֛וֹ [his·copulation] (728) + בִּבְהֵמָ֖ה [with·an·animal] (54) + מ֣וֹת [surely] (446) + יוּמָ֑ת [shall·be·put·to·death] (456) + וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָ֖ה [and·the·cattle] (464) + תַּהֲרֹֽגוּ [you·shall·kill] (614) = 4040.
Onkelos
And a man who gives his emission to an animal shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.
Rashi
ואת הבהמה תהרגו AND YE SHALL SLAY THE BEAST — If the man has sinned, what sin has the beast committed? But because the man’s opportunity to stumble (to sin) was occasioned by it, therefore Scripture says, “let it be stoned"! How much the more does this principle apply to a human being who knows to distinguish between good and evil and yet brings evil upon his fellow-man by inducing him to commit a sin. In a similar way you should explain: (Deuteronomy 12:2) “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places [where the nations… served their gods… under every bushy tree]" Now is not the following a logical conclusion? How is it in the case of trees which can neither see nor hear? Merely because an opportunity to sin was occasioned by them Scripture says, "Destroy, burn, exterminate them!״ One who makes his fellow-man deviate from the path of lifeto the path of death, does it not follow all the more that he should be punished? (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 5; cf. Sanhedrin 54a, 55a.)
Ibn Ezra
"And the animal you shall kill" — so that it not cause another to sin. Some say [the reason is] to conceal the disgrace.
Chizkuni
ואת הבהמה תהרוגו, “and the beast (involved in this perversion) you have to kill.” The reason is in order to prevent it to be used in the same manner again and thus cause another Jew to commit this sin.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואת הבהמה תהרגו, “and the beast you shall kill.” Rashi, following our sages, asks the rhetorical question why the animal should be killed seeing it had not committed a crime? The answer given is that seeing the animal was the catalyst leading to the sin by the human being involved in the act the Torah decreed that it be stoned to death. You may apply some logic here. If even an animal which is unable to distinguish between right and wrong is executed, how much more so will execution be the penalty for a human being who does know right from wrong. When a human being is the cause of a fellow human committing a sin, he is certainly culpable for what he did. We have a verse in Deut. 12,2 where the Torah commands us to destroy all the sites on which idolatry was performed by the Canaanites prior to the Israelites coming to the Holy Land. This provides us with a similar reason of why humans guilty of idolatry will be subject to the death penalty. If even trees, which most certainly were totally passive and had no knowledge of something sinful being performed involving them, are subject to destruction on account of this, how much more so are human beings who were the cause of another human being induced to worship idols through deceiving such a person, subject to execution for their deeds?
And if a woman approach to any beast, and lie down to it, you shall kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
verse value 5200
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 61 letters. Verse gematria: 5200 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "in·them" (בָּֽם, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·all·cattle" (אֶל־כׇּל־בְּהֵמָה֙, 8 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "to·all·cattle" (אֶל־כׇּל־בְּהֵמָה֙), "and·you·shall·kill" (וְהָרַגְתָּ֥), "the·woman" (אֶת־הָאִשָּׁ֖ה). The root אשה appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "she·shall·approach" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "their·bloodguilt" (root דם, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·the·cattle', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִשָּׁ֗ה [and·woman] (312) + אֲשֶׁ֨ר [which] (501) + תִּקְרַ֤ב [she·shall·approach] (702) + אֶל־כׇּל־בְּהֵמָה֙ [to·all·cattle] (133) + לְרִבְעָ֣הֿ [to·lie·down] (307) + אֹתָ֔הּ [it] (406) + וְהָרַגְתָּ֥ [and·you·shall·kill] (614) + אֶת־הָאִשָּׁ֖ה [the·woman] (712) + וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָ֑ה [and·the·cattle] (464) + מ֥וֹת [surely] (446) + יוּמָ֖תוּ [shall·be·put·to·death] (462) + דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם [their·bloodguilt] (99) + בָּֽם [in·them] (42) = 5200.
Onkelos
And a woman who approaches any animal to have it dominate her — you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; they are liable to death.
Ibn Ezra
"Lirvah" [לרבעה] — it is a verbal noun [שם הפעל]. And if it is [vocalized] with a hiriq [i.e., לִרְבְּעָה], it is like "when I break for you" [בשברי לכם] — for the patterns of verbal nouns vary.
Chizkuni
לרבעה, “and lie down with it (the beast);” the letter ה at the end of this word does not have a dot, [which would have had significance as a pronoun, Ed.] מות יומתו, דמיהם בם, “they will both be put to death, their blood shall be upon them.” The animal in question also acted in a perverted manner, as it has been equipped with an instinctive feeling for what is appropriate for it and what not. Man’s perversions during the antediluvian period, eventually resulted in the perversions of the beasts, and this is why they all had to die together with the human beings. After all, the woman surely did not rape the beast!. She could easily have avoided this experience. On the other hand, when discussing a male committing a sexual act with a female beast, the Torah does not describe the beast as bearing blood guilt, since no doubt the beast had been passive and unable to resist. (verse 15) [In that instance the reason why the beast is also killed is that otherwise the disgrace of a human being treated as inferior even to a beast would have reflected negatively on the whole human race. Ed.]
And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness: it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he has uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
verse value 8354
Insights
Verse structure: 21 words, 96 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֣וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·she·sees" (וְהִֽיא־תִרְאֶ֤ה, 8 letters). 8 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "that·he·shall·take" (אֲשֶׁר־יִקַּ֣ח), "his·sister" (אֶת־אֲחֹת֡וֹ), "daughter·of·his·father" (בַּת־אָבִ֣יו). The root ערוה appears 3 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "sons·of" (root בן, 143x in Leviticus); "it" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'their·people', dividing the verse into phrases of 16 and 5 words.
Onkelos
And a man who takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness — it is a disgrace; they shall be cut off before the eyes of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his guilt.
Rashi
חסד הוא IT IS A WICKED THING — It is an Aramaic expression, the Hebrew חרפה (disgrace) being in that language חסודא (cf. Onkelos on Genesis 34:14). A Midrashic explanation of it (of חסד הוא) is; If you should say, "But Cain married his sister!" then I reply, Cain's case was an exceptional one; an act of kindness (חסד) was done by the Omnipresent in order that His world might be built up through him (i. e. He made the propagation of the human race possible through this union), as it is said (Psalms 89:3) "The world was built up through חסד, loving-kindness" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 11; Sanhedrin 58b).
Ramban
AND IF A MAN ‘YIKACH’ (SHALL TAKE) HIS SISTER. Scripture mentions the term kichah [“taking,” which generally denotes the taking of a woman as a wife] in the case of a sister, although betrothal to her is not valid, because a brother and sister sleep together in one house, and when his desire overpowers him, he takes her and draws her to himself, and he does not have to come to her as one does to a woman who is a harlot. Similarly it is the way of Scripture to use the term “taking” in the case of all those with whom one remains alone, for a wife and her mother, [a wife] and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter, a wife and her sister, and a brother’s wife are all [found] with him in one house [hence Scripture uses the term “taking” in each of these cases]. For a similar reason Scripture uses this expression in the following verse, A man shall not ‘take’ his father’s wife. The expression and he see her nakedness is an euphemism, since Scripture modifies its expression in speaking of forbidden relationships. Sometimes it calls sexual intercourse “uncovering of nakedness,” as it says in the case of most of the forbidden women, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness, for it is the way of those who commit fornication to uncover her skirts, similar to that which is said, and I will uncover thy skirts upon thy face; and at times it calls it “entering,” thus: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her; to come in unto us; and he came in unto her, and she conceived by him. Many times Scripture calls it “lying,” and here it refers to it as “seeing,” since brother and sister lodge together and there is no need for uncovering of skirts. Similarly Scripture uses the euphemism “knowing,” as in the following expressions: And the man knew Eve his wife; and he knew her again no more; a virgin, neither had any man known her. And Scripture states [here in the verse before us] and she see his nakedness, meaning to say that she too desired his nakedness in her heart and consented thereto. Now it mentions these expressions only in the case of a sister, because in all forbidden relations when a man approaches a woman for the purpose of uncovering her nakedness, it is generally with her consent, and otherwise she can remove herself from him and cry for help, but in the case of a brother [and sister] who lodge together, it may be that it was done without her knowledge, and therefore Scripture mentioned that she too “saw his nakedness.” IT IS ‘CHESED.’ In the opinion of the commentators chesed here means “shame,” because all people will naturally be ashamed of this ugly sin, this being used here as in the Aramaic language, for Onkelos translated, for that were ‘a disgrace’ unto us, “for that were chisudo unto us.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated and I will lay it for ‘a reproach,’ “[and I will lay it for] chisudo.” And in the language of the Sages [we find]: “Because shechasdo (he shamed him) in public.” Similarly, lest he that heareth it ‘y’chas...
Ibn Ezra
"And a man who takes his sister" — in a place where they are not known, and afterward the matter became known. The meaning of "and he sees her nakedness" — or "he saw" [used as in] "his father and his mother he cursed"; "and he saw" means as much as "he uncovered." The meaning of "and she sees his nakedness" — that the two of them consented to this. "Chesed it is" — from the root of "lest one who hears it disgrace you"; its meaning is an aggravation of the lewdness. "He has uncovered his sister's nakedness" — by force. "He shall bear his iniquity" — alone. The reason this section speaks of a sister is because they grew up together as youths playing [together], and he is alone with her at all times. Scripture did not mention the punishment for a son's daughter or a daughter's daughter, as it relied on the Oral Torah. It is also possible that it did not mention them because of the diminished desire of the father — for he is advanced in years by the time he might have a mature daughter — and therefore Scripture likewise did not mention the father's mother or the mother's mother, for they are elderly.
Chizkuni
ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, “and if a man takes his sister as a wife, etc;” from verse 18,9, the sages derived what kind of sister and from what kind of mother is prohibited on pains of what penalty. The subject is dealt with in detail in the Talmud Yevamot folios 22 and 23. והיא תראה את ערותו, “and she sees his nakedness;” the word והיא is written with the letter י to make certain that there can be no misunderstanding as to who is meant. תראה את ערותו, “the relationship is consensual.” חסד הוא, “it is a shameful thing;” The word הוא, is spelled with the vowel shuruk; this vowel reveals that it is the male in that relationship who is guilty. The first section of the verse speaks of consensual perverse relationship between brother and sister, a relationship both try to keep concealed; hence the Torah adds that their punishment will be very public, an example of how the punishment fits the crime. The second part of the verse assumes that the brother had raped his sister, hence the punishment is confined to the brother, עונו ישא, “he will have to carry the burden of his guilt.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו ..חסד הוא, “if a man takes his sister from his father’s side or from his mother’s side as a wife,.....it is a disgrace (or kindness).” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah here describes sexual intercourse as קיחה i.e. an act of acquisition such as marriage. The reason is that when a man marries a woman he does so with the implied understanding that he will sleep with her. We have found the word יקח used in that sense in verse 14 where clearly the whole concept of someone “marrying” his mother-in-law in addition to his wife is ludicrous. The same applies to the verse which speaks of someone “marrying” the wife of his brother (verse 21), technically an obvious impossibility. Clearly, in each of these verses the word יקח is used as a euphemism for having sexual intercourse with the second party mentioned in each of these verses. The reason the Torah describes such an act as חסד, is based on Proverbs 25,10: פן יחסדך שומע, “lest the one who hears it puts you to shame.” Onkelos translates the word here as קלנא, “shame, disgrace.” Nachmanides does not want to translate the word חסד as different from most instances when it appears and when it means “an act of loving kindness.” He considers the basic meaning of the word as either an act of kindness beyond the call of duty, or the very reverse, an act of unheard of debauchery. He feels that the Torah chose this word to emphasise that compared to other forbidden sexual unions this is the worst, the most disgraceful. A Midrashic approach (Sifra Kedoshim 11,11) the words חסד הוא refer to the time when one had to marry a sister as no one else was around. Kayin is given credit for marrying his sister (three girls were born at the time Kayin and Hevel were born). The word refers to a true kindness as we know from Psalms 89,3 where Eytan (Avraham) says כי אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה, “for I said the universe was constructed on loving kindness.” According to tradition the extra twin was intended for Adam, but he generously waived his claim and allowed Kayin to marry her. Had Adam’s daughter not been assigned a husband the world would not have become populated.
Tur HaArokh
ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, “and a man who takes his sister as a wife.” Nachmanides already comments on why the Torah here uses an expression for a sexual union which elsewhere always means a legal union, i.e. marriage. This seems especially inappropriate, as, according to halachah, any such “marriage” ceremony between brother and sister is null and void. Nachmanides therefore does not understand the word יקח here in the legal sense of the word, but as a graphic description of how brother and sister who both live under the same roof are liable to slide into an intimate relationship precisely because they are so familiar with one another and the frequency of the opportunity makes it hard to resist. Whereas the normal expression in halachah describing sexual intercourse between two people is ביאה, i.e. one party has to “come” to the other, here, due to both parties already being in the same location, that word would lose its normal connotation. All the brother has to do is יקח, take the sister, just as he takes a glass of water. You will find that the Torah has adopted this phraseology of יקח whenever the union of heterosexual relatives who are likely to live in the same house is described. וראה את ערותה, “and he sees her nakedness;” Nachmanides writes that it is the style of the Torah to teach morality by varying the expressions used for the same phenomenon. Sometimes sexual intercourse by people whose sexual union is forbidden is described as “revealing nakedness,” other times it is described as “seeing nakedness,” as here. Other times the same act is simply described as “sleeping or lying together.” The reason why the Torah may have chosen to describe brother/sister sexual relations as “seeing nakedness,” may be because being in the same house together all the time” may not have left much to reveal that either one of them had not seen before without their being intimate with one another. By repeating that the sister also saw her brother naked, the Torah may indicate that the attraction and desire was completely mutual and that neither force nor enticement was needed. When a female is seduced unwillingly, she would protest in the loudest possible terms. What is described here therefore occurred by mutual consent, so that no investigation was needed to determine that both were equally guilty. [Compare Deut. Chapter 22 where seduction or rape between two people not related to one another genetically are discussed. Ed.] Seeing that when brother and sister are in the habit of sleeping in the same bed, the brother might have perpetrated his act without the prior consent of his sister, or even without her knowledge, the Torah reports her consent in order to justify the penalty she will have to suffer. חסד הוא, “it is a shameful disgraceful act.” People, by nature, possess a sense of shame that often deters them from committing sins, acts that are despicable. We find the word חסד in that context in Proverbs 25,10 פן יחסדך שומע, “lest he who will hear it puts you to shame.” (By revealing something you would have preferred to keep secret.) Nachmanides writes that he feels that the word חסד in our verse is used in the way it is used in nearly all other instances in the Bible, namely referring to an act of kindness. How then does this fit our situation? Precisely because brother and sister are closely related it was the duty of the brother to see to it that his sister find a suitable husband, something he has now made difficult if not impossible because he indulged his lust. The Torah repeatedly stated that the prohibition to reveal the other party’s nakedness was because of the close relationship that exists between such parties, so that it is taking unfair advantage of that relationship. It is as if the Torah asks the rhetorical question: “is this the way you show your sister true kindness?” The Torah speaks of חסד in the masculine mode, i.e. הוא to show that it always considers the male to have been the one initiating the intimacy between the two. This approach can also be applied to the verse from Proverbs we quoted earlier, namely: “the one who revealed your innermost secret has deprived you of all the kindness he should have shown you.” ונכרתו לעיני עם, “they shall be cut off in the sight of their whole nation.” The message of this verse is that when you commit a sin in secret, I, G’d, will see to it that it becomes public by means of the penalty I will exact from you in plain view of all. The Torah chose to tell us this in connection with sins usually committed in the privacy of one’s home. What applies here also applies to all the sins that are punishable by the karet penalty. ערות אחותו גלה, עונו ישא, “he will have to bear the burden of his sin for having revealed the nakedness of his sister.” Ibn Ezra adds that if her brother had raped his sister so that only he alone had revealed the nakedness of his sister, of course, only the brother will be subject to the penalty described here. Nachmanides writes that the reason that the word עונו, “his guilt,” is written in the singular mode is that each of the two parties will have to bear the burden of their joint sin individually. It is similar to the situation in verse 19 where the Torah uses the word עוונם, “their collective guilt” in the plural mode. Ibn Ezra mentions that the reason why the Torah did not spell out the penalty for sleeping with the grandson or granddaughter may be that the senior partner in that relationship, due to old age, may not get much carnal pleasure out of gratifying his desire.
Rashbam
חסד הוא, the word חסד here is to be understood in the same sense as the same word in Proverbs 25,10 פן יחסדך שומע, “lest the one who hears it puts you to shame.” We also find the word having such a meaning in Proverbs 14,34 וחסד לאומים חטאת, “even the kindness of nations is a form of sin.” This is also the way Rav Yoseph translates this word in his commentary on Proverbs.
And if a man shall lie with a woman during her menstrual period, and shall uncover her nakedness — he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood — both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
verse value 6865 — וְהִ֕וא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 76 letters. Notable word values: "and·she" (וְהִ֕וא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "in·her·menstrual·period" (דָּוָ֗ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "who·lies" (אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב, 7 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "in·her·menstrual·period" (דָּוָ֗ה), "and·he·shall·uncover" (וְגִלָּ֤ה), "her·flow" (אֶת־מְקֹרָ֣הּ). The root גלה appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "from·among" (root קרב, 112x in Leviticus); "and·she" (root הוא, 102x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'her·blood', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 4 words.
Onkelos
And a man who lies with a woman in her impurity and uncovers her nakedness — he has exposed her disgrace, and she has exposed the impurity of her blood — both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Rashi
הערה means HE HATH UNCOVERED. Similarly the term ערוה everywhere denotes "uncovering". The ו in the word ערוה nakedness, is inserted in the root ערה in order to form a noun of it, just as the noun זעוה, "trembling", is of the same derivation as זע in the phrase (Esther 5:9) "and he stood not up and did not tremble (זע)". Similarly, אחוה "brotherhood", is of the same derivation as אח, brother. As for this term "uncovering" our Rabbis differ in the meaning they give to it (Yevamot 55b). Some say that it is the mere contact of the tip of the organ, while others say that it is the insertion of the tip.
Ibn Ezra
"Davah" — she is ill on account of the blood. The meaning of "the source of her flow he has laid bare" — that he has done a great abomination. The meaning of "and she has laid bare" — willingly; for if she was coerced, only he is cut off.
Tur HaArokh
את מקורה הערה, “he has bared the source of her blood.” Ibn Ezra views this expression, used here for the first time, as an indication that the Torah considers this sleeping with a menstruating partner as an abomination reflecting something very depraved. He explains the additional words: והיא גלתה את מקור דמיה, “and she revealed the source of her blood,” as applicable only if she was a willing partner in the union, not if she had been raped.
And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, nor of your father's sister; for he has made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.
verse value 3782
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 47 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "his·body" (אֶת־שְׁאֵר֛וֹ, 6 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "sister·of" (אֲח֧וֹת), "and·sister·of" (וַאֲח֥וֹת), "his·body" (אֶת־שְׁאֵר֛וֹ). The root אחות appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "for" (root כי, 81x in Leviticus); "your·mother" (root אם, 41x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'you·shall·uncover', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְעֶרְוַ֨ת [and·nakedness·of] (682) + אֲח֧וֹת [sister·of] (415) + אִמְּךָ֛ [your·mother] (61) + וַאֲח֥וֹת [and·sister·of] (421) + אָבִ֖יךָ [your·father] (33) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + תְגַלֵּ֑ה [you·shall·uncover] (438) + כִּ֧י [for] (30) + אֶת־שְׁאֵר֛וֹ [his·body] (908) + הֶעֱרָ֖ה [has·laid·bare] (280) + עֲוֺנָ֥ם [their·guilt] (166) + יִשָּֽׂאוּ [they·shall·bear] (317) = 3782.
Onkelos
And the nakedness of your mother's sister and your father's sister you shall not uncover, for he has uncovered his close relative's nakedness; they shall bear their guilt.
Rashi
'וערות אחות אמך וגו [AND THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHERS SISTER [NOR OF THY FATHER’S SISTER] — Scripture repeats the prohibition regarding these (although they had been mentioned already in Leviticus 18:12, 13) to tell us that one is prohibited in respect to them, both in regard to one's father's or mother's sister on their father's side, and in regard to their sisters on their mother's side. But as regards a marriage being forbidden with the wife of one's father’s brother (cf. Leviticus 18:14) the prohibition (i.e. the איסור ערוה מדאורייתא) applies only to the wife of the brother of one's father when he is the father’s brother on the father’s side (i. e. when both have one father) (cf. Yevamot 54b).
Ibn Ezra
"And the nakedness of your mother's sister" — its meaning: I have already warned, "you shall not uncover," and behold, the one who uncovers the nakedness has laid bare his own flesh. "They shall bear their iniquity" — if the matter was done willingly. [The Torah] did not mention the punishment for a father's sister, nor did it mention at all the punishment for [marrying] two sisters. The discerning person will understand; and the words of tradition are also true.
Chizkuni
כי את שארו הערה, “for he has made naked his nearest kin,” if he had raped her. If the relationship had been consensual, both will have to carry the burden of their sins,עונם ישאו.
And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife — he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness — they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
verse value 4054
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 45 letters. The shortest word is "that" (אֲשֶׁ֤ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "with·his·aunt" (אֶת־דֹּ֣דָת֔וֹ, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 317: and·man, they·shall·bear. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "with·his·aunt" (אֶת־דֹּ֣דָת֔וֹ), "his·uncle" (דֹּד֖וֹ), "their·offence" (חֶטְאָ֥ם). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus); "their·offence" (root חטא, 65x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'uncovered', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 4 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֗ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֲשֶׁ֤ר [that] (501) + יִשְׁכַּב֙ [he·shall·lie] (332) + אֶת־דֹּ֣דָת֔וֹ [with·his·aunt] (815) + עֶרְוַ֥ת [nakedness·of] (676) + דֹּד֖וֹ [his·uncle] (14) + גִּלָּ֑ה [uncovered] (38) + חֶטְאָ֥ם [their·offence] (58) + יִשָּׂ֖אוּ [they·shall·bear] (317) + עֲרִירִ֥ים [childless] (530) + יָמֻֽתוּ [they·shall·die] (456) = 4054.
Onkelos
And a man who lies with his paternal uncle's wife — he has uncovered his paternal uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their guilt; they shall die childless.
Rashi
אשר ישכב את דדתו AND IF A MAN SHALL LIE WITH HIS AUNT… [THEY SHALL DIE CHILDLESS] — This verse is intended to teach that the "excision" mentioned above (18:29, where "all these abominations includes the union prohibited in v. 14 of that chapter) consists in their (the offenders’) passing from this world childless. ערירים — Translate this as the Targum renders it: בלא ולד, childless. Similar is, (Genesis 15:2) "and I will pass away childless (ערירי)”. If he has children he will bury them (i. e. they will die during his life-time); if he has no children when this sin is committed he will die childless (he will beget no children afterwards). That is why Scripture varies the expression in these two verses (this and the following) here stating ערירים ימתו, "they shall die childless", and there ערירים יהיו, "they shall be childless". The expression ערירים ימתו implies: if he has any children at the time he commits the sin, he shall have none remaining when he dies because he will bury them during his lifetime; ערירים יהיו on the other hand, implies: if he has no children at the time when he commits the sin, he shall remain all his life just as he was then (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 7; Yevamot 55a).
Ibn Ezra
"His aunt" [דדתו] — she is his uncle's wife. "Childless they shall die" — the Sadducees said this means as if [written] "naked" [ערומים], and that "they shall die" means "they shall be put to death." But they did not speak the truth. The correct interpretation is as the Aramaic Targum, as I have already explained in [the verse] "write this man childless," for it is like "he walks childless."
Rashbam
ערירים ימותו , Heaven will interfere with such couples’ ability to conceive and to give birth to viable children.
And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is a removal — he has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
verse value 3434
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 46 letters. The shortest word is "that" (אֲשֶׁ֥ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "childless" (עֲרִירִ֥ים, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 25: his·brother, his·brother. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "a·removal" (נִדָּ֣ה). The root אח appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "they·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֗ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֲשֶׁ֥ר [that] (501) + יִקַּ֛ח [he·shall·take] (118) + אֶת־אֵ֥שֶׁת [wife·of] (1102) + אָחִ֖יו [his·brother] (25) + נִדָּ֣ה [a·removal] (59) + הִ֑וא [it] (12) + עֶרְוַ֥ת [nakedness·of] (676) + אָחִ֛יו [his·brother] (25) + גִּלָּ֖ה [uncovered] (38) + עֲרִירִ֥ים [childless] (530) + יִהְיֽוּ [they·shall·be] (31) = 3434.
Onkelos
And a man who takes his brother's wife — it is a removed thing; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
Rashi
נדה הוא means, this cohabitation ought to be kept at a distance (avoided) and is loathsome. Our Rabbis explained that these words prohibit the slightest approach to her [I.e. one is liable for superficial contact, as is defined in the commentary on verse 18] just as though she were a נדה in the case of whom such intimacy is expressly stated as forbidden, as it says, (v. 18) “he hath uncovered her fountain” (cf. Yevamot 54a).
Ibn Ezra
And it says regarding a brother's wife: "it is niddah" — the meaning is that he ought to distance himself from her, and so too it says: "your brothers, those who hate you, those who exclude you" [Isaiah 66:5]. Now, in [all] the forbidden unions there is no mention of niddah except in the case of a brother's wife. The niddah is forbidden but a time will come when she may become permitted; similarly it is possible with a brother's wife, as I will explain in the parashah of "when brothers dwell together" [Deuteronomy 25]. As for what they say — that just as a father's sister is forbidden to him, so too is it forbidden for a woman to marry her uncle — that is not the proper approach, for the prohibited unions are written in the masculine [i.e., they address men as the active parties] and there is none to compel [the women by the same textual logic]. And if [they argue] by their own deficient analogical reasoning, by the same logic we should accept the testimony of two women, and [in the matter of] valuations [ערכין] four women should count as two witnesses. Therefore we require the [oral] tradition.
Chizkuni
נדה היא, “it is equivalent to sleeping with a woman during her period.” The comparison with a woman during her menses is that just as his wife is permissible to her during certain periods and not others, so a brother’s wife if she had become a widow and had never had any children would not only be permissible to him, but he would fulfill a commandment by marrying her in a levirate ceremony.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואיש אשר יקח את אשת אחיו נדה היא, “when a man takes his brother’s wife it is loathsome, etc.” The Torah does not mean to use the term נדה here in the sense that such a woman is considered like a menstruous woman to her brother-in-law; the term is used in the same sense as the expression זמה היא, “it is sexual depravity.” The meaning is similar to the meaning of the word חסד in verse 17, i.e. it is despicable. Our sages in Yevamot 54 derive an halachic rule from this expression, i.e. that even partial insertion of just the tip of his member in the vagina without ejaculation is culpable. The reason the sages say this is because the Torah specifically mentioned this form of penetration in connection with a menstruous woman in verse 18. A Midrashic approach (Yevamot 54): the words נדה היא, “she is menstruous,” mean that there is a common denominator between marrying a sister-in-law and sleeping with a menstruous woman. Both categories of women are not absolutely forbidden; the menstruous woman becomes permitted after ritual immersion, and the sister-in law is permitted if her sister who was married to her brother-in-law first has died. All the forbidden sexual unions mentioned in this portion have already been mentioned in the previous portion; in Acharey Mot the penalties for violating these laws were not mentioned at all; this is why here the Torah lists the penalties associated with violation of these laws. The only forbidden union not repeated here is that of someone marrying two sisters while both are alive. The Torah omitted this here out of deference to Yaakov who had married two sisters (before the Torah had been given and not in the land of Israel). The meaning of the word ערירים ימותו in verse 20 is that if these people had children prior to committing the offense listed these children would die during the lifetime of the father; if the father did not have any children at that point in his life he would remain childless for the rest of his natural life.
Tur HaArokh
אשת אחיו, נדה היא, “the wife of his brother, is as forbidden as a menstruating woman.” Our sages (Yevamot 54) interpret this somewhat unclear wording to mean that even incomplete coitus with one’s sister-in-law is as serious a sin as sleeping with one’s own wife while she is menstruating. The penalty makes this point quite clear. Some commentators feel that the Torah was especially harsh here, seeing that under certain circumstances, such as the brother having died without ever having had children, it may actually become a mitzvah to marry this sister-in-law who had become widowed by performing the levirate marriage ceremony with her.
You shall therefore keep all My statutes, and all My ordinances, and do them, that the land, where I bring you to dwell in it, vomit you not out.
verse value 7583
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 71 letters. The shortest word is "in·it" (בָּֽהּ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·all·my·rules" (וְאֶת־כׇּל־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י, 10 letters). Words sharing gematria 461: you, you. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "to·settle" (לָשֶׁ֥בֶת). 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "and·you·shall·do" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus); "bringing" (root בוא, 81x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'them', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 10 words.
Onkelos
You shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them, so that the land to which I am bringing you to dwell in it does not expel you.
Ibn Ezra
"And you shall keep all My statutes" — so as not to transgress these forbidden unions. "And all My ordinances" — the ordinances of punishment. The meaning of "and the land shall not vomit" — I will explain it in the parashah of Vayelech.
Or HaChaim
ושמרתם את כל חקותי, "And you shall observe all My statutes, etc. The reason the Torah had to repeat this verse although we have read it already in 18,26 is to urge us to ensure that the statutes do not become abolished in practice through failure of either oneself or others to observe them. Observance of the statutes insures that the land will not spew you out. If the community one lives in fails to protest non-observance of these חוקים by others one will still be subject to the land spewing out its inhabitants even if personally one had been meticulous in one's observance of Torah law.
Chizkuni
ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “and you are to observe all My statutes.” You must not violate any of the commandments involving sexual restrictions and incest. (bn Ezra) ואת כל משפטי, “and all My instructions concerning penalties for transgressing these laws,” by your judges seeing to this. ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “the reason why the Torah has repeated this phrase once again, is to remind the people that G-d’s statutes apply in the Diaspora as well as in he Holy Land. In this verse only the statutes applicable in the Holy Land are meant.
And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
verse value 3339
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 49 letters. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֤י, 2 letters) and the longest is "all·these" (אֶת־כׇּל־אֵ֙לֶּה֙, 7 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "in·practices·of" (בְּחֻקֹּ֣ת), "the·nation" (הַגּ֔וֹי), "all·these" (אֶת־כׇּל־אֵ֙לֶּה֙). 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·not" (root לא, 188x in Leviticus); "from·your·face" (root פנים, 102x in Leviticus); "they·did" (root עשה, 94x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'from·your·face', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְלֹ֤א [and·not] (37) + תֵֽלְכוּ֙ [you·shall·walk] (456) + בְּחֻקֹּ֣ת [in·practices·of] (510) + הַגּ֔וֹי [the·nation] (24) + אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֥י [that·I] (562) + מְשַׁלֵּ֖חַ [sending] (378) + מִפְּנֵיכֶ֑ם [from·your·face] (240) + כִּ֤י [for] (30) + אֶת־כׇּל־אֵ֙לֶּה֙ [all·these] (487) + עָשׂ֔וּ [they·did] (376) + וָאָקֻ֖ץ [and·I·abhorred] (197) + בָּֽם [in·them] (42) = 3339.
Onkelos
And you shall not walk in the practices of the nations that I am driving out from before you, for they did all these things, and My Word distanced itself from them.
Rashi
קוץ — ואקץ signifies loathsomeness. Similar is: (Genesis 27:46) "I am sick (קצתי) of my life”, like a man who is disgusted with his food (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 16).
Ibn Ezra
"And I abhorred them" — it is a figure of speech, like "and his soul grew impatient."
Chizkuni
ולא תלכו בחקות הגוי, “you must not adopt the statutes of gentile nations.” The reason why this too has been repeated here is so that you could not claim that these statutes are only the ones that apply to the Israelites as a community, but not to statutes that apply to them as individuals.
But I have said to you: "You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am Hashem your God, who have set you apart from the peoples.
verse value 7492 — יְהֹוָ֣ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 87 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֣ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "to·you" (לָכֶ֗ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "who·I·have·set·apart" (אֲשֶׁר־הִבְדַּ֥לְתִּי, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 90: to·you, to·you. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "you·shall·possess" (תִּֽירְשׁ֣וּ), "their·land" (אֶת־אַדְמָתָם֒), "I·will·give·it" (אֶתְּנֶ֤נָּה). The root לכם appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "I·will·give·it" (root נתן, 86x in Leviticus); "and·said" (root אמר, 79x in Leviticus). First appearance of the root ירש ("you·shall·possess") in Leviticus. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·honey', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 6 words.
Onkelos
And I said to you: You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to inherit it — a land producing milk and honey. I am Hashem your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "a land flowing with milk and honey" — that there is none like it. "Who have set you apart from the peoples" — through these statutes; and furthermore, that you should distinguish between [pure and impure] animals.
Or HaChaim
ואני אתננה לכם..ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, "And I give to you… a land flowing with milk and honey." After G'd had already said: "in order for you to inherit it," why does the Torah have to add the words: "and I will give it to you?" Besides, why does the Torah link the excellence of the land to our inheriting it? The answer may be that not only does G'd give us the land as an inheritance, but He gives us an addditonal gift namely the excellence of this land. The Torah also hints that the excellence of the land is linked to our inhabiting it as an inheritance. Should the Temple and Jewish independence be destroyed, the excellence of the land would disappear because it no longer serves as our inheritance. Unfortunately we have had to learn the truth of this due to our sins.
Chizkuni
אתם תירשו את אדמתם, “you are about to inherit their land.” You are going to be their heirs as you preceded them in observing My commandments even before being ordered to do so, as our author had explained on chapter18,26. ואני אתננה לכם, “and I will give it to you;” seeing that as the children of Shem, son of Noach who was older that Cham, from whom they have descended, your claim is older. All they (the Canaanites) did while occupying that land was to preserve it for the time when it would become yours. (Sifra) אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G-d.” Anyone who has Me as his G-d, needs none other.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואני אתננה לכם, “and I shall give it to you.” With these three words G’d the Unique promises to give the land which is unique to the people who are unique, to Israel. This is the meaning of the words: “and I shall give it to you as a possession.” G’d means that up until that time the land of Canaan had remained His land just as the Jewish people had been special to G’d. He had never assigned any horoscopic constellation to govern the fate of the Jewish people. Neither had G’d appointed a special agent such as a מלאך or שרף to be in charge of the fortunes of the Jewish people. The reason is that “you are part of My share, not their share, I am your national G’d, not theirs.” To the other nations, says G’d, I am only the supreme G’d, i.e. אלוהי האלוהים. This is how Nachmanides explains the above words; (even though this is not his precise wording, this is what he intended to say).
You shall therefore separate between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean birds and the clean; and you shall not make your souls detestable by beast, or by birds, or by any thing with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.
verse value 6571
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 100 letters. The shortest word is "which" (אֲשֶׁ֣ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "your·souls" (אֶת־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֜ם, 9 letters). Words sharing gematria 55: the·impure, the·soil. 8 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·you·shall·set·apart" (וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּ֞ם), "between·the·animal" (בֵּֽין־הַבְּהֵמָ֤ה), "and·between·the·bird" (וּבֵין־הָע֥וֹף). The root טמא appears 3 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 240x in Leviticus); "from·the·impure" (root טמא, 131x in Leviticus); "and·in·all" (root כל, 88x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·the·pure', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 11 words.
Onkelos
And you shall distinguish between clean animals and unclean, and between unclean birds and clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable through animals and birds and anything that creeps on the ground, which I have set apart for you as unclean.
Rashi
והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהרה לטמאה YE SHALL THEREFORE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CLEAN BEASTS AND UNCLEAN — It is needless for Scripture to say that one should distinguish between a cow and an ass for these are different and are therefore distinguishable. But it means: you shall distinguish between such an animal as is clean (permitted) to you and such as is unclean (forbidden) to you although it is a clean animal per se, i.e., make a distinction between an animal which has been killed by cutting at least the greater part of each organ (the gullet and the windpipe) or whether it has been killed by cutting exactly the half of each organ. And how much difference is there between the greater part and the exact half? A hair’s breadth only (and consequently the command is given: והבדלתם, “you shall very carefully distinguish”) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 20; cf. also Rashi on Leviticus 11:47 and Chullin 27a). אשר הבדלתי לכם לטמא WHICH I HAVE SEPARATED FOR YOU TO DECLARE THEM UNCLEAN — This means, to declare them as forbidden.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "the clean" — the ten [animals] that were mentioned [as clean], while all others are unclean. The meaning of "the unclean bird" — those that were mentioned [as unclean], while all others are clean. The meaning of "to make yourselves unclean" — that you should know it is unclean in thought and in speech. And likewise "you shall regard the bird as abominable." Therefore the resident alien may not eat something unclean in a pure land, for on this condition does he dwell among us.
Sforno
ולא תשקצו את נפשותיכם בבהמה ובעוף ובכל אשר תרמוש האדמה, from all kinds of “impure” living creatures אשר הבדלתי לכם, from the ritually “pure.” לטמא, in the sense that physically revolting creatures and especially ingesting them, will eventually contaminate the soul, the spiritual basis of the human being who has consumed them. This negative fallout is the result only of eating such creatures, not of carrying on trade involving them.
Chizkuni
והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהורה לטמאה, וגו, “you must distinguish between the ritually pure beasts, and the impure ones, etc.;” it is well known that the ritually pure beasts are far fewer in number than the ritually impure ones; this is why the Torah had mentioned them first as not so many need to be enumerated. The same applies to the ratio of ritually pure birds and those that are birds of prey. The reason for the warning here is that it is usual for the minority to eventually become assimilated to the majority and to lose their identifying traits. The Israelites therefore had to be warned to insure that this did not happen. Our author adds a warning to the teachers not to be overly long when explaining matters to their pupils so that they remain alert to concentrate on the essence rather than the more trivial parts. (Talmud, tractate Pesachim folio 3), [but prior to this, Solomon, in Kohelet, 12,12. Ed.]
And you shall be holy to Me; for I Hashem am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples, that you should be Mine.
verse value 2742 — יְהֹוָ֑ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 49 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֑ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "to·me" (לִי֙, 2 letters) and the longest is "from·the·peoples" (מִן־הָֽעַמִּ֖ים, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 40: to·me, to·me. 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "and·I·set·apart" (וָאַבְדִּ֥ל). The root היה appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 308x in Leviticus); "and·you·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "holy" (root קדש, 101x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 5 words. Full calculation: וִהְיִ֤יתֶם [and·you·shall·be] (471) + לִי֙ [to·me] (40) + קְדֹשִׁ֔ים [holy] (454) + כִּ֥י [for] (30) + קָד֖וֹשׁ [holy] (410) + אֲנִ֣י [I] (61) + יְהֹוָ֑ה [Hashem] (26) + וָאַבְדִּ֥ל [and·I·set·apart] (43) + אֶתְכֶ֛ם [you] (461) + מִן־הָֽעַמִּ֖ים [from·the·peoples] (255) + לִהְי֥וֹת [to·be] (451) + לִֽי [to·me] (40) = 2742.
Onkelos
And you shall be holy before Me, for I, Hashem, am holy; and I have set you apart from the nations to be worshipping before Me.
Rashi
ואבדל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי AND I HAVE SEPARATED YOU FROM THE PEOPLES THAT YOU SHOULD BE MINE — If you hold yourselves apart from them then you will be Mine, but if not, you belong to (become subject to) Nebuchadnezzar and others like him. Rabbi Eleazer ben Azariah said, “Whence do we know that one should not say, "My soul loathes swine’s flesh”, or, “I have no desire to wear clothes which are a mixture of wool and linen”, but one should say, "I would, indeed, like them, but what can I do since my Father in heaven has imposed these decrees upon me”? Because Scripture states: “I have separated you from the peoples to be for Me", whichyour separation from them (from their doings) should be for My sake — that one should keep aloof from sin and take upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 23).
Ibn Ezra
"And if you observe all that I have commanded you, then you shall be holy, for you are obligated to follow Me, because I am holy."
Or HaChaim
והייתם לי קדושים, "And you shall be holy unto Me, etc." The reason the Torah adds the word לי in this verse may best be understood in connection with the comment of Torat Kohanim on this verse that one should never say: "I cannot eat pig's meat," but one should say: "I would love to eat pig's meat but alas, G'd has forbidden it to me." Similarly in our verse G'd does not want us to be holy because we detest the various phenomena in this world G'd has prohibited to us, but He wants us to be holy because He has commanded us to be so, i.e. לי. This is also the reason this verse appears next to the commandment to separate between the ritually pure and the ritually impure mammals and fowl (verse 25). The Torah added: כי קדוש אני, "for I am holy," to tell us the reason we must keep our distance from the impure creatures. G'd continues to explain this concept of separation. He has separated us from the Gentiles; it is no more than fitting then that we separate ourselves from the impure species. We have reason to bless the Lord for having set us apart from both human and animal impurity.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, “I have separated you from the peoples to be Mine.” The wisdom of the Torah which we have absorbed forces us to be separate and different in our food, our drink, our clothing, etc. Seeing that we are singled out to have been given the commandments of the Torah the nations of the universe are jealous of us; being jealous of us they have come to hate us. This is basically what our sages had in mind in Shabbat 89 when they said: “The mountain of Sinai used to be known as Mount Chorev. Why then is it known nowadays as Mount Sinai? It is because the anti-Semitic hatred of the idolaters originated from that mountain.” A Midrashic approach (Sifra Kedoshim 9,11) The words: “I have separated you from the peoples, etc.,” are to be understood as follows ‘if you keep yourselves apart from the other nations then you will be Mine;’ if not, you will become the property of such kings as Nevuchadnezzar and his colleagues. Rabbi Eliezer son of Azaryah said: ‘how do we know that a person should not say: “I cannot wear a garment composed of a mixture of wool and linen; I cannot commit an incestuous relationship; I cannot eat pig, etc.,” but that a person should admit that he is perfectly capable of participating in those foods, etc.” [He meant a person should not be revolted by such things by nature so that he does not have to make a conscious decision to refrain from them. Ed] A person should feel that the reason he does not try and enjoy any of these otherwise attractive-looking foods and drinks, etc., is because G’d has put it out of bounds to us. This then is the meaning of: “I have separated you from the nations,” i.e. your separation has been divinely decreed. By accepting this decree you will keep away from committing sins and you will accept the yoke of heaven (instead of being slaves to your natural urges). The reason that in this instance the Torah refers to the other nations as העמים instead of as הגויים, [a term which at first glance seems to be complimentary to them, Ed.], is that the word means also חשכים, i.e. כהה, עמיא, “darker,” compare Onkelos on Leviticus 13,6 describing the white of the tzoraat becoming darker. The eyes of the nations have become blinded by being exposed to the brilliance of the light of the Torah. They suffer from the fact that they walk in darkness, having rejected the Torah. Moreover, they are destined for a sojourn in purgatory, a spiritually dark domain. The author quotes a few more verses describing the darkness enveloping the nations of the world.
A man also or a woman that divines by a ghost or a familiar spirit, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.
verse value 2701
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 55 letters. The shortest word is "or" (א֥וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "that·he·shall·be" (כִּי־יִהְיֶ֨ה, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Leviticus. Unique to this verse in Leviticus (hapax): "spirit·of·dead" (א֛וֹב), "a·familiar·spirit" (יִדְּעֹנִ֖י), "they·shall·stone" (יִרְגְּמ֥וּ). The root מות appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that·he·shall·be" (root היה, 147x in Leviticus); "or" (root או, 101x in Leviticus); "and·man" (root איש, 93x in Leviticus). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·put·to·death', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 5 words. Full calculation: וְאִ֣ישׁ [and·man] (317) + אֽוֹ־אִשָּׁ֗ה [or·woman] (313) + כִּי־יִהְיֶ֨ה [that·he·shall·be] (60) + בָהֶ֥ם [in·them] (47) + א֛וֹב [spirit·of·dead] (9) + א֥וֹ [or] (7) + יִדְּעֹנִ֖י [a·familiar·spirit] (144) + מ֣וֹת [surely] (446) + יוּמָ֑תוּ [shall·be·put·to·death] (462) + בָּאֶ֛בֶן [with·the·stone] (55) + יִרְגְּמ֥וּ [they·shall·stone] (259) + אֹתָ֖ם [them] (441) + דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם [their·bloodguilt] (99) + בָּֽם [in·them] (42) = 2701.
Onkelos
And a man or a woman in whom there is divination by the dead or consultation of spirits — they shall surely be put to death; with stones they shall stone them; they are liable to death.
Rashi
'כי יהיה בהם אוב וגו [A MAN ALSO, OR A WOMAN] THAT HATH THE SPIRIT אוב, [OR THAT IS A WIZARD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Here the penalty of death by stoning is mentioned for them, and above (Leviticus 20:6) it mentions excision! But the explanation is: If there were witnesses to the offence and the necessary warning had been given them, death by stoning is the punishment. If he acted wittingly but had not been warned, he is punishable with excision and if he breaks the law regarding them (the אוב or ידעוני) inadvertently, he has to bring a sin offering. And the same rules apply in the case of all persons who are subject to the death penalty, where excision is mentioned (i. e. in all such cases “stoning" or a sin offering is the punishment according to the circumstances).
Ibn Ezra
The reason for "and a man or a woman" [being specified here]: because He had spoken regarding the Ovot, "to defile themselves through them," He now says: be holy, and put to death those who defile their soul through Ov or Yid'oni — for up to this point He had not mentioned the punishment for one who openly resorts to Ov. The reason women are mentioned is that this craft is more common among women, and so too: "a sorceress you shall not allow to live."
Sforno
ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בהם אוב או ידעוני, seeing that the thrust of all the preceding legislation had been to sanctify the Jewish people through their observance of these laws, anyone deviating from these commandments, turning instead to these oracles, is doing precisely the opposite of what the Torah wanted him to do. No wonder that his penalty is judicial execution by the harshest death penalty, i.e. being stoned to death.
Tur HaArokh
ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בהם אוב או ידעוני, “any man or woman practicing the cult of ov or yidoni, etc.” The reason that the Torah mentions the word אשה especially, although like all negative commandments women are as culpable as men, is because women far more than men are known to have practiced these cults.
Onkelos
Ibn Ezra
Chizkuni