Comentario sobre Levítico 18:35

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

SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Since this chapter deals with [the laws of] prohibited sexual intercourse which apply equally to all Israel, therefore He said only, Speak unto the children of Israel, and did not specify the priests but included them together. Therefore He said at first, I am the Eternal your G-d, just as He did in the Ten Commandments [which He began with the words, I am the Eternal thy G-d].²¹⁴Exodus 20:2. And the meaning of the verse, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: I am the Eternal your G-d, is as if He said, “Say unto them in My Name, ‘I am the Eternal your G-d.’” Similarly, Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them: Ye shall be holy, for I the Eternal your G-d am holy,²¹⁵Further, 19:2. [means: “say unto them in My Name, ‘Ye shall be holy'”].
It is possible that the reason [why the verse does not say: “this is what G-d commanded,” is not because it means: “say unto them in My Name” as explained above, but] is rather as follows: When Moses came out from before the Eternal without the veil²¹⁶Exodus 34:33-35. [on his face], and he came out, and spoke unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded,²¹⁷Ibid., Verse 34. he did not need to say to them: “Thus said the Eternal,” for it was known to them that it was His spirit that spoke through him [Moses] and His word was upon his tongue,²¹⁸See II Samuel 23:2. Hence it is no longer necessary to explain the meaning of the verse to be [as we said above]: “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them in My Name, I am the Eternal your G-d,” since it was known to them that Moses did not speak in his own name. and that he did not speak in his own name. Similarly, in many places in the Book of Deuteronomy it is stated in the same way, such as: And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments, which I command you this day … that I will give the rain of your Land … And I will give grass in thy fields,²¹⁹Deuteronomy 11:13-15. and [it is known that] Moses is not the one who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields,²²⁰Job 5:10. and makes the grass grow in the fields, but it is G-d, blessed be He [that does these things]. Similarly it is said, But the Eternal hath not given you a heart to know … And I have led you forty years in the desert … Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am the Eternal your G-d.²²¹Deuteronomy 29:3-5. The opening verse [But the Eternal …] clearly indicates that the expression in the following verse, And I have led you etc. is also a reference to the Eternal, and not to Moses. The meaning of the expression to love the Eternal your G-d²²²Ibid., 11:13. [which is stated in the third person, when that same verse begins in the first person, And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments], has already been explained.²²³Exodus 24:1 (towards end — Vol. II, p. 422-3).

,דבד…. ואמדת כמעשה ארץ מצדים, "speak ….and say:…according to the doings in the land of Egypt, etc." We need to know why our verse repeated the instruction to Moses by writing both דבר and ואמרת. Besides, what news does our verse convey by having G'd describe Himself as "I am the Lord your G'd?" Was there anyone who did not know this as yet? Besides, what is the Torah's intention with the unusual introduction כמעשה? If the object of the word כמעשה was not known how would we know to what these מצות addressed themselves? This is true both for the מעשה which was presumed to be the norm in Egypt as well as the מעשה which was presumed to be the norm in the land of Canaan at that time. The entire paragraph from verse 2 through 5 is extremely vague.

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

A Judge who will exact punishment. (Re’m) Because [the expression] אלהים represents the attribute of justice, i.e., to punish sins. [Whereas the expression] ה' represents the attribute of mercy, i.e., to forgive sins if a person repents, and to reward one for mitzvos. (Nachalas Yaakov) Re’m did not remember what Rashi writes at the beginning of parshas Va’eira, “’I am Adonoy,’ ([denoting] that He may be relied upon to exact retribution), etc.” We see that Rashi derives this from “I,” without regard to the expression אלהיכם. See there.

Our sages in Torat Kohanim said that the Torah compared practices rampant in Egypt with practices rampant in the land of Canaan. According to their interpretation, why did the Torah have to repeat the commandment? If all the Torah wanted to tell us was that the people of both these countries committed the same kind of sins, why did the Torah have to phrase this in such a cumber-some manner? Besides, why did the Torah have to add the gratuitous remark אשר ישבתם בה, "that you have dwelled amongst," when speaking of Egypt? Who did not know that the Jewish people used to reside in Egypt? Is there then another country called "Egypt?" We can ask a similar question concerning the land of Canaan concerning which the Torah writes: "which I am about to bring you to?" What other land of Canaan is there? Even assuming that there was another country called Canaan, one we have never heard of, how would we know anything about their practices?

It appears to us that the fact that the commandment mentioned here appears next to the various laws about incest as well as the fact that in verse 24 we are told not to defile ourselves by transgressing any of these commandments seeing that the nations mentioned have defiled themselves by ignoring these sexual mores, it is clear that the commandment introduced by the word כמעשה refers to sexual mores. Once we keep this in mind we have no problem explaining the wording of the Torah here.

It is well known that a Jew is able to fulfil all the commandments G'd has demanded of His people without suffering undue hardship and that he can develop a tendency to do so willingly. The only exception to this rule is the commandment to refrain from certain sexual unions. The נפש, animalistic life-force within man, exercises a powerful influence over man urging him to disregard those commandments. The Israelite can successfully battle this urge only if he a) controls his visual contact with the opposite sex and b) if he controls his fantasizing. If a person fails to control these two senses he will fall victim to temptation. If a person does not limit his visual contact with the opposite sex, the fact that he does not think about it does not guarantee that he will not be aroused through visual contact. You may learn a valuable lesson in the psychology of sexual attraction from the following incident reported in Kidushin 81. Rav Amram who was the Rabbi of the pious, had a number of female prisoners whose freedom was bought by the community of Nehardea brought to his house. He gave them accomodation in the upper floor in his house and disconnected the stairs to that floor to prevent men from visiting there. It happened that one of these women passed the place where the ladder used to stand and Rabbi Amram felt as if he had seen a bright light, i.e. the beauty of that woman made a powerful impression upon him and he felt a strong attraction to her. He brought a ladder which was so heavy that it took ten people to move it and moved it single-handedly to climb to the upper floor. By the time he had climbed half the rungs of the ladder he managed to control his lust and cried out: "Amram! the house is on fire!" As soon as people heard him they came running and observed that Rabbi Amram was standing half way up that ladder. The rabbis scolded him for having caused them embarassment as it was clear to all of them what had prompted Rabbi Amram to call out. So he told them it was better they should be embarassed on his behalf in this world than to have to be embarassed by him when they would meet him in the Hereafter. He made the evil urge swear an oath to stop tempting him and the latter swore such an oath. Thereupon he said to Satan: "see here, you are fire and I am only flesh; I have proven now that though I am flesh I am stronger than you." The story proves that even though Rabbi Amram had not been able to control his thoughts, as long as he was not aroused by looking at the object of his lust he was able to fight his impulses. There is another story told in Yalkut Shimoni parshat Vayechi in which someone had himself blinded in order to withstand the lure of the evil urge to commit sexual offences. If exposure to even one of these causes of temptation is dangerous, how much more so is it impossible to fight off temptation which is the result of both a lively imagination and the visual allure of the object of one's fantasy. The author lists a few more examples of the deadly nature of combining fantasy with visual allure. When one is exposed to both these temptations they are almost impossible to resist. The author explains the statement in Berachot 34 that "in the place where the rehabilitated sinners stand, the perfectly righteous are not able to stand," as meaning that the perfectly righteous never had to battle his sexual urges, whereas the rehabilitated sinner "stood still," i.e. arrested his urge to run towards the object of his temptation only after a battle with his evil urge.

This brings us to the commentary on our verse. The Lord G'd was very clever in giving this commandment. He explained to us that an ordinary person who finds himself in the throes of sexual passion need not say that the fight against his evil urge is doomed to failure anyway. G'd does not demand anything of us which we are incapable of delivering. If He did not know that given the proper circumstances which we ourselves can create we are able to fulfil what He expects from us, He would not have given such a commandment. G'd expects His commandment to test only those people who have first taken measures not to expose themselves visually to such temptation or to indulge in fantasies arousing their desire. If a person did not take the above-mentioned precautions to help him fight temptation based on his sexual urge he is not likely to withstand temptation when it comes his way. This is what the Torah hinted at when it wrote כמעשה ארץ מצרים אשר ישבתם, meaning that although you resided in a country such as Egypt which is a centre of sexual permissiveness and you were therefore not able to avoid thinking about such temptations, I still command you to triumph over your evil urge. The word ישיבה is a metaphor for inactivity, for an inhibition. The Torah refers to the Jewish people who displayed the ability to resist sexual temptation while they were surrounded by it. This encouraged G'd to legislate such resistance to temptation in an environment which would be more friendly to those who wish to resist temptation. You are not to emulate the actions of the Egyptians.

At the same time, G'd continues: "though I will bring you to a country in which you will be constantly aroused by seeing sexual permissiveness all around you so that you would not even have to exercise your imagination in order to become aroused, I demand from you not to copy their activities."

As far as someone saying that he is unable to control his thoughts in this manner, the Torah introduced this commandment by the repeated דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "speak and say to the children of Israel I am the Lord your G'd," that while it is quite true that the human species as such finds it almost impossible to control their fantasies regarding their sexual passions this is not so in the case of Israelites seeing that the Lord is our G'd. Our affinity to G'd enables us to master drives which are of a purely biological nature. As soon as an Israelite has agreed to cleave to G'd this means that G'd in His turn dominates his nature, i.e. that the צורה תשלוט בחומר, "mind controls matter." This is in accordance with the statement of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 34,11 that the hearts of the righteous are under their control whereas the wicked are controlled by their hearts. What the Midrash means is that the heart is the seat of man's desires whereas the seat of his will-power is his mind, his brain. G'd has granted man two separate levels of decision-making power. In matters of the libido the heart is the dominating factor, though the will situated in and controlled by the brain is capable of overriding the urges of the heart and prevent it from carrying out its urge. You find that people are able to impose fasts on themselves through sheer will-power though they have a strong urge to eat and drink, an urge that originates in their hearts. The same is true of people's ability to overrule their hearts' craving to indulge their sexual urges. The righteous always conduct themselves in this manner, their hearts being controlled by their will-power in spite of any urges originating in their hearts which they may experience. Their שכל, intelligence, i.e. their soul, makes the choice of how to act. If, moreover, G'd has warned us not to indulge in certain activities or that He has made it plain that certain categories of activities are abhorrent to Him, the rightous will desist from idulging his urge even if He did not spell out any specific penalty in that context. As a result, the will of a righteous person does not experience any difficulty in curbing the craving to indulge in such an activity. The wicked, on the other hand, are so captive to the urgings originating in their hearts that their will is not powerful enough to restrain their hearts. Perhaps this is due to their not possessing a נשמה, soul, (in the case of Gentiles) or that their soul has already become too contaminated by their behaviour so that it has submitted to other forces within the personality of the body it inhabits. G'd said: כי אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, that due to our נשמה in which some divinity resides, we the Israelites are able to successfully combat the cravings of our libido. Compare Psalms 78,60: אהל שכן באדם, "the tent He set within man." In this verse G'd refers to the soul in man as a form of Tabernacle. It is this which lends the Israelite the strength to cope with even the strongest temptations of the evil urge.

This is also what David had in mind when he said in Psalms 40,9: "my desire is to do what pleases You." David meant that he cleaved to G'd so much that even his heart, the seat of his desire was anxious to do G'd's will. David's heart did not have to be reigned in by his will-power, but it had so reformed that it would do G'd's will of its own free will. His heart hated those things which the heart, the seat of desire for material physical things normally desires. David alluded to this with the word חפצתי, in the past tense, meaning that whatever used to be his חפץ, the desire inspired by his heart, seat of his physical cravings, had stopped being that. David also alluded to this in Psalms 109,22 when he said: ולבי חלל בקרבי, "my heart was empty (or dead) within me;" in either event he says that the desires which normally fill a heart have departed from him. Instead, in 40,9 David says: "ותורתך בתוך מעי," "Your teachings fill my innards." David says that whereas a normal person feels that his guts have been filled with physical food, he feels that his guts have been filled with G'd's Torah which have replaced the need for such physical food.

Perhaps David wanted to tell us something I have heard in the name of the sainted Ari Zal in the introduction to his שער הגלגולים. There are occasions when a person who was good changes into an evil person and that person himself is unable to account for such a change in his character. The sainted rabbi attributes this character change in a person to his having eaten some some food which contained forbidden, i.e. harmful natural ingredients or the residue of an evil being whose soul had undergone a transmigration. When the basically good person consumes such food it affects his character negatively as he absorbs part of the life-force of the soul of the wicked. It follows that one has to be extremely careful not to eat anything which might have absorbed the soul of a sinner in a previous incarnation. David may therefore have alluded to something of this nature when he said that even his heart, i.e. the seat of his חפץ, had become attuned to doing the will of its Creator and that his guts were full of G'd's Torah, i.e. food permitted by the Torah.

The following will help to understand the plain meaning of ותורתך בתוך מעי, "Your Torah is inside my guts." The origin of all plants, be they the kind that are essential for the survival of our נפש, our physical life-force, be they part of the multitude of beneficial herbs nature is full of, or be they plants which we merely eat for our own gratification, is rooted in the Torah which is the "mother" of all. Just as the Torah itself contains several levels i.e. פשט ,רמז, דרש ,,סוד so the various foodstuffs we find in this world may also be classified according to different levels; each level i.e. category of food, makes a different kind of contribution to our wellbeing. In my commentary on Song of Songs called ראשון לציון have explained the verse (2,4) הביאני אל בית היין that just as there are herbs which have a natural beneficial effect on those who consume them, so there are commandments in the Torah the fulfilment of which has a natural beneficial effect on the body of the person fulfilling them. This is a most important prerequisite to the understanding of the commandments of the Torah. I have mentioned here only an outline of the subject in order to make Psalms 40,9 intelligble on the basis of the plain meaning of the verse. The nutritional value of every food a person eats derives from its having absorbed some of the sanctity of Torah. Ever since the time Adam ate from the tree of knowledge beneficial and harmful effects of food have become mixed up so that every food contains a negative element also. G'd commanded us not to eat from the fruit of a tree which is less than four years old in order to allow time for the harmful effects to have been screened out. Wheat, (since Adam's sin) is surrounded by husks, straw, and other parts which have to be discarded. G'd has instructed us through the Torah to abstain from numerous foods in which the harmful elements cannot be separated from the beneficial elements so that the life-force of the chosen people not become contaminated. It follows that when an Israelite eats food which is permitted, it is as if he benefited directly from the light of Torah, the light from the celestial regions. The only difference is that this light underwent a metamorphosis in accordance with the needs of the physical universe all of whose creatures require physical food each in accordance with his specific needs. David simply said that G'd's Torah reached his guts via the method G'd had prescribed for this food to fulfil its function within man. His desire to carry out G'd's will was aided by his having partaken only of permitted food. His guts do not contain anything which would deter him from making his desire correspond to G'd's will.

Let us now go back to the main subject under discussion, the Israelite's imagination as applied to matters concerning his libido. The more he thinks about this subject the more his desire becomes aroused making it harder for his רצון, will, to control his emotions, the urges rooted in his being flesh and blood. Whereas normally, one needs to concentrate on the subject of G'd's commandments in order to ensure that one fulfils them in the best way possible, in this case one must avoid even thinking about it so that one does not see the object of one's desire with one's eyes. The moment one looks upon the object in question one places one's innocence in jeopardy. We know that King David fell victim to his carnal urges as a result of looking at Bat Sheva (Samuel II 11,2) bathing on the roof of her house. Up until that moment David's heart which had been devoid of lust had not been aroused. He did what he did only as a result of what he saw with his eyes. The moment one begins to think carnal thoughts one's temptation is reinforced, and as a result this makes preoccupation with carnal thoughts appear as something natural. The wise Solomon was fully aware of this and this is why he wrote in Proverbs 1,10: "my son, if sinners entice you, do not consent." He meant that one should not engage in arguing with anyone who tries to entice one to sin. The mere fact that one argues about it already strengthens the forces of temptation. When David said in Psalms 19,9 that the precepts of G'd are clear and brilliant, he referred to the expressions דבור and אמירה respectively, i.e. that on the one hand G'd gave clear directives, i.e. like the decree of a king, דבור; on the other hand, He also phrased this commandment as אמירה, as a soft-spoken one, the kind of tone one adopts with highly placed people and He asked Moses to tell them that He is their G'd, i.e. to bestow His Holy Name on them. There is no greater tribute G'd can pay to a people.

כמעשה ארץ מצרים AFTER THE DEEDS OF THE LAND OF EGYPT… [SHALL YE NOT DO] — This tells us that the deeds of the Egyptians and the Canaanites were more corrupt than those of all other nations, and that the district of Egypt in which the Israelites had resided (אשר ישבתם בה) was even more corrupt than all the rest of Egypt (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 3).

According to the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, the Scriptural command, After the doings of the land of Egypt … shall ye not do,²²⁴Verse 3. is a reference to [the practice of sacrificing to] the demons mentioned above [in 17:7]; and after the doings of the land of Canaan … shall ye not do²²⁴Verse 3. is an allusion to the forbidden sexual relationships, in which the Canaanites were very bad and sinful,²²⁵Genesis 13:13. as He stated at the end of this section, For all these abominations have the men of the Land done.²²⁶Further, Verse 27. And in the opinion of our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim,²²⁷Torath Kohanim, Acharei 9:3. the Egyptians were also addicted to carnality, in all forms of the forbidden relationships, and with males and cattle. This is the truth, [as Scripture states] that there were also sodomites in the Land,²²⁸I Kings 14:24. The verse concludes: they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Eternal drove out before the children of Israel. referring [to the abominations of the nations] which were there from the beginning till now. Scripture further testifies concerning them, the Egyptians, thy neighbors, great of flesh,²²⁹Ezekiel 16:26. and it further says, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses,²³⁰Ibid., 23:20. the term “flesh” being a euphemism [for the sexual organ]. Similarly, in the expressions, his flesh ran with his issue,²³¹Above, 15:2. and her issue in her flesh be blood²³²Ibid., Verse 19. [the term “flesh” is an allusion to the sexual organ].

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

אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה [AND AFTER THE DEEDS OF THE LAND OF CANAAN] WHITHER I BRING YOU [SHALL YE NOT DO] — This again tells us that those Canaanitish clans whom Israel subdued were more corrupt than all the others of them (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 4).

[And that place] in which the Israelites settled [was the most corrupt of all]. Explanation: Even [worse] than the practices of the Land of Goshen, and how much more so than that of Egypt. Because if not so, why [does the verse add] “and the practices of the Land of Canaan?” [The answer is]: The verse is adding [in severity as it goes] from Egypt to Goshen, and from Goshen to Canaan.

ובחקתיהם לא תלכו NEITHER SHALL YE WALK IN THEIR ORDINANCES — What has Scripture left unsaid when it spoke of the deeds of the Egyptians and Canaanites that it felt compelled to add ובחקתיהם לא תלכו But by these latter words it refers to their social customs — things which have assumed for them the character of a law as, for instance, the frequenting of theaters and race-courses. Rabbi Meir, however, said: These (חקתיהם) refer to the "ways of the Amorites" (superstitious practices) which our Rabbis have enumerated (Shabbat 67a; Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 8; cf. also Tosefta Shabbat 7).

Theatres. In the first chapter of Kesuvos (5a), Rashi explains that טרטיאות are palaces of non-Jewish kings and non-Jewish ministers. (Gur Aryeh): אצטדיאות is a sport where they incite bulls and other beasts to gore and fight each other.

את משפטי תעשו YE SHALL DO MY JUDGMENTS — Matters prescribed in the Torah which are in conformity with the human feeling of justice such as one feels ought to be ordained if they had not been already ordained by the Torah.

MINE ORDINANCES SHALL YE DO. “These are matters prescribed in the Torah which, even if they were not prescribed, one would know that they ought to be prescribed.” Thus the language of Rashi. And in the Torath Kohanim it is stated:²³³Torath Kohanim, Acharei 13:10. “These are matters written in the Torah which, even if they were not written, would deserve to have been written, such as robberies, forbidden sexual relationships, idolatry, bloodshed and blasphemy.”
Now by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the term mishpatai (Mine ordinances) is to be understood in its simple sense. It is a reference to the laws stated in the section of V’eileh Hamishpatim (And these are the ordinances)²³⁴Exodus 21:1. and in the whole Torah. Therefore He states here, which if a man do, he shall live by them,²³⁵Further, Verse 5. as these laws were given so that man should live, and for the development of countries, and peace among men, so that no one should cause harm to his fellowman or kill him. The prophet Ezekiel likewise mentioned many times with reference to these mishpatim (ordinances), which if a man do, he shall live by them,²³⁶Ezekiel 20:11, 13 and 21. while of the Sabbath he says, to be a sign between Me and them.²³⁷Ibid., Verse 12. Similarly in the Book of Nehemiah it says, Thine ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them.²³⁸Nehemiah 9:29. But our Rabbis have said:²³⁹Yoma 85 b. “He shall live by them²³⁵Further, Verse 5. — but not die by them. This teaches that danger to live overrides the Sabbath laws and [all] the commandments.” And according to the Midrashic interpretation it means:²⁴⁰Torath Kohanim, Acharei 9:10. It is also mentioned here in Rashi. “He shall live by them²³⁵Further, Verse 5. — in the World to Come. Should you say it means that he shall live in this world, will he not in the end die!”²⁴¹Hence the Divine assurance that he shall live by them must refer to eternal life. And if so, the expression which if a man do, he shall live by them²³⁵Further, Verse 5. refers back [not only to the mishpatim (ordinances), as we explained before, but] also to chukothai [“My statutes,” those laws for which no reason is given, but the observance of which also assures one eternal life].
Know that man’s [reward in] life for the observance of the commandments is in accordance with his preparation for them. For he who fulfills the commandments not for their own sake, but in order to receive a reward, will be rewarded on account of them in this world with longevity, riches, possessions, and honor. It is concerning this [kind of observance of the laws of the Torah] that it is said, in her left hand are riches and honor,²⁴²Proverbs 3:16. which the Rabbis interpreted to mean:²⁴³Shabbath 63 a. “to those that stand on the left of it [i.e., to those who engage in the observance of the Torah not for its own sake], there are material riches and honor.” Similarly, those who engage in the observance of the commandments so as to merit by them reward in the World to Come, these being the people who serve G-d out of fear [of punishment], will be found worthy on account of their intention to be saved from the judgments that will come upon the wicked, and their souls shall abide in joyfulness²⁴⁴See Psalms 25:13. [in life eternal]. But those who engage in the observance of the commandments out of love, as is right and proper, together with worldly occupation, similar to what is mentioned in the Torah in the section of Im Bechukothai,²⁴⁵If ye walk in My statutes. Further, 26:3. And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage,²⁴⁶Ibid., Verse 5. they will merit good life in this world according to the usual nature of things, and in life eternal, in the World to Come, their merits will still be complete before them [since the reward they received in their lifetime will not reduce that which is to come to them in the hereafter]. But those who abandon altogether the concerns of this world and pay no attention to it, acting as if they themselves were not creatures of physical being, and all their thoughts and intentions are directed only to their Creator, just as was the case with Elijah, [these people] on account of their soul cleaving to the Glorious Name will live forever in body and soul, as is evidenced in Scripture concerning Elijah²⁴⁷II Kings 2:11: and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. and as is known of him in tradition,²⁴⁸The Talmud and Midrashim abound in instances which prove that Elijah’s removal from earth was no interruption of his earthly existence. On the contrary, in countless appearances he traverses the world in order to protect the innocent etc. (see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, IV, pp. 202-235). and as the Midrashim speak of Enoch²⁴⁹Genesis 5:24: And Enoch walked with G-d, and he was not; for G-d took him. Many Midrashim describe his activity after his ascencion into heaven. See, however, Rashi ibid. and of those belonging to the World to Come who will rise at the resurrection. It is for this reason that on the subject of reward for observance of the commandments the verses speak [in various ways, such as]: that thy days may be long;²⁵⁰Exodus 20:12. that thou mayest live;²⁵¹Deuteronomy 16:20. and that thou mayest prolong thy days.²⁵²Ibid., 22:7. For these expressions include all kinds of life, each according to his due.

את משפטי תעשו, "You shall carry out My ordinances, etc." In view of the fact that the entire chapter deals only with regulations about forbidden sexual unions, what does the Torah mean by referring to "My statutes and My ordinances?" Besides, what does the Torah mean with the words ללכת בהם, "to walk in them?"

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

In the Torah as law. Such as robbery and murder.

ואת חקתי תשמרו AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES — matters which are decrees of the King (promulgated without any reason being stated) against which the evil inclination raises objections: "Why should we observe them and against which also the nations of the world raise objections, as e. g., the prohibition of eating swine’s flesh, of wearing clothes of a mixture of wool and linen, the purgatory power of "water mingled with the ashes of the Red Heifer" (טהרת מי חטאת) — therefore it is stated: "I", the Lord, have enacted this for you — you are not at liberty to evade the obligation (Yoma 67b).

את משפטי תעשו, “you are to carry out My laws, etc.;” the reason why the משפטים were mentioned first is that once we observe these commandments i.e. performing justice tempered wit mercy, משפט וצדקה, it is easier to also perform the statutes which are basically acts of obedience and faith in the Creator.

You may not evade them. Because if not, why write “and follow them”? Scripture already wrote, “And keep My statutes.”

I believe we may explain this in connection with what we wrote that thinking about the subject of sex increases one's lust at the expense of the power of the will to dominate one's decision-making process. The Torah was afraid to tell us to distance ourselves from the subject of sex absolutely in order that we would not refrain from fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply, or to marry the widow of a brother who died without children, and other related commandments. Taking the warnings of the Torah too much to heart would result in something counterproductive to G'd's "statutes and ordinances." Therefore the Torah introduced the subject by first repeating the need to carry out G'd's ordinances, i.e. את משפטי תעשו, referring to the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply, before warning us to observe the prohibitions about to be legislated in that context, i.e. ואת חקותי תשמרו. Sukkah 52 describes man as possessing a small organ which becomes more hungry in direct proportion to the amount of food it is provided with, whereas it feels satisfied with less and less if one starves it. The organ is, of course, man's reproductive organ. Therefore G'd had to tell us to walk in His ordinances, i.e. to perform the basic commandment of procreation, populating earth, etc.. At the same time, and while fulfilling those ordinances, we must be careful also to observe G'd's statutes, i.e. the limitations legislated in this chapter as to who we are allowed to mate with.

ללכת בהם TO WALK IN THEM — do not free yourselves from their environment, i.e. that you must not say, I have acquired Jewish wisdom, now I will go and acquire the wisdom of the other peoples of the world in order to walk in their ways.

Alternatively, we may view the entire legislation about forbidden sexual unions as a form of mental preparation for the performance of the positive commandment to procreate in the proper spirit. If the Torah had not introduced the whole subject matter by asking us to carry out the various positive ordinances and by refraining from the various statutes so that we would be mentally prepared to conform with G'd's wishes, we would have considered indulgence in the sexual act as something which contaminates the soul and body of the human being. We would have thought that it is so fraught with both spiritual and physical impurity that it contaminates each and every organ of a human being as well as all his faculties. As a result, we would have considered ourselves as unable to fulfil any of the Torah's positive commandments properly unless we abstained from all sexual activity. We would have considered ourselves as in the class of the wicked whose מצוה-performance Assaph describes in Psalms 50,16 as: "who are you to recite My laws and to mouth the terms of My covenant?" Assaph implies that G'd is not interested in anyone performing His commandments unless such a person has attained a certain level of sanctity first.

The Torah added the words ללכת בהם as a reference to the raw material the human being represents when performing G'd's commandments. If man has performed the sexual act after proper spiritual and mental preparation he will be able to father children whose natural tendency it will be to observe G'd's commandments. David referred to something like this when he said in Psalms 119,59: "I have considered my ways and have turned back my feet to Your decrees." Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 35,1 understand these words to mean that David had so trained himself that his feet automatically would walk towards the Torah Academy out of habit and out of a desire to study G'd's Torah. When the Torah asked us ללכת בהם, it urged us to so relate to G'd's commandments that we would develop a "natural" tendency to walk in the paths of Torah.

Another meaning of the words ללכת בהם may be similar to the meaning of Ezekiel 33,12 who said: "the righteousness of the righteous one will not save him on the day of his iniquity." Ezekiel meant that even if a person had lived a perfectly righteous life all his years but turns to sin in the end he has lost the merits he accumulated during the years prior to his turning to sin. His merits will not accompany him on his way to judgment after death. [According to the Talmud this is so only if he regrets having lived a righteous life before he turned to sin. Ed.] When we consider the words of Ezekiel we must understand the words ללכת בהם to mean that a person has to walk in the path of the Lord's commandments in order that his merits will accompany him on his most important journey, i.e. on the way to the last judgment.

Another meaning of the Torah's admonition to walk in G'd's ordinances and statutes is to remind us not to perform them in order to receive our reward in this life. Our sages in Eyruvin 22 phrase the line in Deut. 7,11 היום לעשותם as meaning "you are to perform the commandments this day (in this life) in order to receive your reward tomorrow, i.e. in the hereafter." It is a warning to us not to want to cash in all our rewards in this life.

Another meaning of the expression ללכת בהם may be related to the verse in Proverbs 6,23: כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, that a single commandment is like a lamp whereas the Torah in its entirety is compared to Light with a capital L. The celestial universe is distant and when the soul of man ascends from this world to the celestial regions he will find the road dark if he lived the life of a sinner. On the other hand, if a person lived a life filled with מצוה- performance, the commandments he performed will light up the way between this world and the celestial regions. We have a verse in Psalms 119,105: "Your word is a lamp at my feet, a Light for my path," expressing a similar sentiment. What the Psalmist means is that both the lamp and the Light possess features not shared by the other. The advantage of a lamp is that its source of light is close to the person holding it, and this is why our sages in Pessachim 2 insist that the search for leavened things on the evening prior to Passover must be conducted in the presence of a lamp, i.e. at night when there is no light. A lamp's advantage is that it illuminates all the dark corners in the room, something the brightest natural daylight fails to do. On the other hand, Light possesses a great advantage compared to a lamp as it enables one to see for great distances. This is why David said that performance of G'd's commandments results in two benefits to the person performing them; 1) he will be able to see what is nearby, i.e. נר לרגלי; "they are a lamp at my feet," at the same time it also provides Light increasing the ability to see for long distances ahead. This is why David said ואור לנתיבתי. When the Torah said that the function of the ordinances and the statutes is ללכת בהם, to walk by them, it referred to both the lamp and the Light which performance of the commandments secures for the people performing them.

In the Zohar volume 1, page 170 Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai states that the 613 commandments which are divided into 248 positive commandments and 365 negative commandments, are symbolic of man's bones and sinews respectively. The performance of each commandment provides a positive momentum for the respective bone or sinew it represents. The words ללכת בהם refer to the power of מצוה-performance to move man's limbs. Performance of each מצוה also results in G'd's name, or rather part of it, coming to rest on the limb or sinew which that מצוה represents. The word מצוה is equivalent to the 4-lettered name of G'd י־ה־ו־ה, when one employs the system known as א־ת,ב־ש,ג־ר i.e. that one reverses the sequence of the letters in the aleph-bet. Inasmuch as we subscribe to the principle of ה׳ אחד ושמו אחד, that the unity of G'd is expressed also in His very name, this is the mystical dimension of Exodus 25,8: ושכנתי בתוכם. "I will be present within them." In that verse G'd demonstrated that we, the Jewish people, have become the carriers of the מרכבה, the presence of G'd and His entourage. The same idea is also found in Leviticus 26,12 where G'd speaks of "walking" amongst us. All of this is provided we fulfil what is written in Deut. 4,4: "you who cleave to G'd are alive this day."

'ושמרתם את חקתי וגו‎ YE SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY ORDINANCES — [This is not a mere repetition of v. 4 but is intended] to include other details of the laws mentioned in this chapter which Scripture does not expressly mention. Another explanation is: Scripture makes this repetition in order to attach the commands of “observing" (שמירה) and "performing" (עשיה) to the חוקים, and the commands of שמירה and עשיה to the משפטים, for in v. 4 it uses the term עשיה only in connection with the משפטים, and that of שמירה only with reference to the חוקים (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10).

ושמרתם את חקותי, "You shall keep My statutes, etc." Why did the Torah have to repeat in this verse almost word for word the same directive it had written in the previous verse? Perhaps we may best explain this on the basis of Sanhedrin 74 where the Talmud explains the words וחי בהן, "so that he may live by them," as meaning "so that he will not die by them." If a Jew is forced to violate one of G'd's commandments, he should rather violate such a commandment than make a martyr of himself. The Talmud adds that there are three exceptions to this rule, idol-worship, forbidden sexual relations, and killing an innocent person. If a Jew is threatened with death if he does not violate any of these three commandments he must choose death rather than violate any of these commandments. You will observe that in verse 4 no mention is made of וחי בהם, that one should prefer life over martyrdom, whereas in our verse the Torah added the words וחי בהם. It follows that the commandments mentioned in verse 4 are those for which a person must be prepared to martyr himself and to sanctify the name of G'd by laying down his life.

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

Other subdivisions. Because if not, why write “You shall keep”? Scripture already wrote, “And you shall keep My statutes?”

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

וחי בהם means, THAT HE SHALL LIVE THROUGH THEM in the world to come (eternal life). For if you say it means that he shall live in this world, is it not a fact that in the end he must die! (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10; cf. also Targ. Onkelos)

Keeping and fulfilling the statutes. Explanation: Above it is written “And you shall keep My statutes,” and here it is written, “which if a man fulfills, etc.,” which refers to [both] statutes and laws. And keeping and fulfilling the laws is written above, “You shall fulfill My laws.” And here it is written “You shall keep My statutes and My laws.”

Furthermore, when we examine the different nuances in these two verses we will be enlightened further. In verse 4 the Torah writes אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "I am the Lord your G'd," whereas in our verse the Torah only writes: אני השם, "I am the Lord." We may infer from this that the Torah addresses different Jews in the two verses. In one verse the Torah addresses the Jews who fulfil the commandments due to a feeling of love for G'd, whereas in the other verse the Torah addresses Jews who fulfil the commandments due to a fear of punishment should they fail to observe G'd's laws. Sotah 31 has already taught us that the reward for people performing the commandments out of a sense of fear of the Lord extends for up to one thousand generations, whereas the reward for people whose motivation is love for G'd extends for up to two thousand generations. It is quite impossible for a person to attain the level of serving the Lord out of feelings of love until he had first experienced the level of serving the Lord out of a feeling of fear of punishment. This is the mystical dimension of Psalms 118,19: "this is the gate of the Lord, the righteous are able to enter it." In accordance with this, verse 4 addresses itself to people who serve the Lord from a sense of fear, and the Torah writes: את משפטי תעשו, "you are to perform My ordinances, etc., ending with the words "I am the Lord your G'd," the word אלוקיכם being a clear reference to G'd in His capacity of the attribute of Justice. In verse 5, however, when the Torah addresses itself to someone who has already passed the initial stage of serving the Lord out of fear and he serves the Lord out of feelings of love, the Torah no longer has to make mention of the attribute of Justice because the person addressed would not be influenced in his observance by mention of that attribute.

'אני ה‎ I AM THE LORD, Who am faithful to pay you your reward (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8 10).

The Torah adds the words וחי בהם in our verse to tell us that when someone serves the Lord out of feelings of love, he will also partake of the good to be found in this life in addition to any reward he accumulates for use in the hereafter, in eternity. Perhaps this is why the Torah wrote the letter ו before the word חי, to tell us that the good experienced by such a person in this life is additional to i.e. ו, to the reward he stores up for himself in the hereafter. People addressed in verse 4 who serve G'd motivated by fear do not qualify for this assurance. According to what we have just explained the words ללכת בהם in verse 4 apply basically to the hereafter whereas they apply also in this life if the people concerned serve G'd because they love Him. We may explain Deut. 11,13 "It will be if you hearken diligently to My commandments…to love the Lord your G'd….and I will grant the rain of your land in its season, etc." in the same way we have just mentioned, that מצוה-performance based on love of G'd results in dividends in this life and that such people deserve reward in both worlds. This in spite of the fact that our sages in Kidushin 39 state that there is no reward in this life for מצוה-performance. The Talmud did not refer to people who receive a bonus in this life rather than the actual reward due them. The Torah (Deut. 11,14) also alludes to reward in the hereafter by commencing with the conjunctive letter ו, i.e. ונתתי. The meaning of that letter ו is that any blessing experienced in this life is only a bonus in addition to the reward itself which will be paid in the hereafter, the exact nature of which the Torah has not revealed.

There are yet another four types of “life” man may merit as a result of מצוה-performance: One is regular life on earth such as the majority of people enjoy who experience no special disabilities in their lives on earth and are in good health.
The second category of life on earth is that of people who have recovered from usually terminal sicknesses and near-fatal accidents. Such lives may be compared to vessels which have been reconstructed after having reached what could be considered as the end of their useful existence. We find a description of something like this in Job 33,25: “let his flesh be healthier than in his youth; let him return to his younger days.”
The third kind of life is that granted by G’d to the sinner who was slated for death but has repented with the result that G’d grants him an extension of life. This is what the prophet Ezekiel 33,11 speaks of when he said: ”it is not My desire that the wicked shall die but that he turn back from his evil ways and live!”
The fourth category of life is life after the resurrection. All of these four categories of life are part of the Torah’s promise וחי בהם that he who observes the commandments of the Torah may qualify for some or all of these lives.

האדם, man. We have several statements in the Talmud (Baba Kama 38, Avodah Zarah 3 et al) in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah according to which a Gentile who engages in study of the Torah may attain a spiritual level comparable to that of a Jewish High Priest. The Talmud derives this from our verse, i.e. האדם וחי בהם. The Torah does not speak of "priests, Levites, or Israelites, but only of האדם." Thus far Rabbi Yirmiyah. Rabbi Yirmiyah's comment was prompted by the apparently superfluous word האדם. He was also perplexed by the fact that the Torah wrote those few words in the third person whereas the rest of the two verses are written in direct speech. The Torah should have written אשר תעשו אותם if it wanted to be consistent with the syntax of the chapter up to this point. Rabbi Yirmiyah therefore concluded that the words האדם וחי בהם refer to someone not included in the people addressed by the Torah directly in the previous verses, i.e. neither Israelites, Levites, or priests. The only person left therefore is the Gentile. Tossaphot query this from a Baraitha in Baba Metzia 114 which quotes Rabbi Shimon as saying that only Israelites qualify for the complimentary description אדם, based on Ezekiel 34,31 "אדם אתם, אני ה׳ אלוקיכם." Tossaphot answer that we must distinguish between the term אדם and האדם. Whereas the term אדם refers only to Jews, the term האדם does not have such a narrow connotation. I saw a similar comment in the Zohar volume 1, page 25 stating that this is not merely an artificial semantic distinction. Adding a letter does not enhance the concept it represents but diminishes it. Perhaps it is true that when a Gentile occupies himself with Torah for valid reasons he too will be able to qualify for the complimentary title אדם. At any rate, Rabbi Yirmiyah sees in the additional letter ה an indication that Gentiles are included in the term אדם if they study Torah. The letter ה is not to be considered as integral to the noun האדם.

לא תקרבו NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH TO [ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM] — The intention is to admonish women as well as men (in respect to this general prohibition of unchastity); on this account the plural is used (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 1).

NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH TO ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM, TO UNCOVER THEIR NAKEDNESS. The reason for the prohibition of sexual relationships with one’s near of kin is not expressly written [in the Torah]. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim²⁵³Guide of the Perplexed III, 49. that [this law seeks to inculcate the lessons that] we should limit sexual intercourse, hold it in contempt, and perform it rarely. Now these women which Scripture has forbidden amongst the relatives of one’s wife are forbidden because they are constantly together with him in his house,²⁵⁴“For as a rule, the mother of the wife, her grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, and sister-in-law are often with her; the husband meets them always when he goes out, when he comes in, and when he is at his work” (ibid., Friedlander’s translation). Now “if we were allowed to marry any of them, and were only precluded from sexual intercourse with them without marriage, most people would constantly become guilty of misconduct with them. But as they are entirely forbidden to us … there is reason to expect that people will not seek it, and will not think of it” (ibid.). and the same applies to one’s own relatives [sisters, aunts, and the wife of one’s uncle], who are frequently with him and he is closeted together with them. A similar reason the Rabbi states for all forbidden relations. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already written²⁵⁵In the verse before us. likewise that since the passion of man’s heart is like that of the animals, it was impossible for Scripture to forbid all females, and therefore it prohibited only those that are available to him at all times. But this is a very weak reason, that Scripture should make a person liable to the punishment of excision in the case of these forbidden relations, just because they are sometimes found together with him, and at the same time permit a man to marry many women, even in the hundreds and thousands! And what harm would there be if a man would marry only his daughter, just as was permitted to the Noachides,²⁵⁶Sanhedrin 58 b. or marry two sisters as did our patriarch Jacob? A person also could not do better than to give his daughter in marriage to his elder son, and they would inherit his possessions and multiply and increase in his house, for He created not the earth a waste, He formed it to be inhabited!²⁵⁷Isaiah 45:18. We have no tradition as to [the reason of] this prohibition of forbidden relationships, but logically it would appear that there is in this matter one of the secrets of creation, which attaches to the soul and is part of the secret of the transmigration [of souls], to which we have already alluded.²⁵⁸Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I, pp. 469-470).
Know that sexual intercourse is held distant and in contempt in the Torah unless it is for the preservation of the human species, and therefore where there can be no offspring [such as in pederasty or carnal intercourse with beasts], it is forbidden. Similarly, where [the union is such that] the child born therefrom will not have a healthy existence, nor succeed from it, the Torah prohibited such a union. This is the sense of the expressions: el kol ‘sh’eir’ b’saro [literally: to any ‘flesh’ next to his flesh]; for he hath made naked ‘eth sh’eiro’²⁵⁹Further, 29:19. See Ramban on Exodus 21:9 (Vol. II, pp. 356-7), where he elaborates on the meaning of this word sh’eir. [literally: his flesh]. Thus the Torah forbade these marriages on account of sh’eir [i.e., because the forbidden relations constitute “flesh” next to one’s own], the term sh’eir being derived from the expression [in the verse], ‘hanish’ar’ (he that is left) in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem.²⁶⁰Isaiah 4:3. The term sh’eir denoting “flesh” or “relative” is something which “remains” with a person, as it is his own or next to his flesh. Hence Scripture states, they are ‘sha’arah’ (near kinswomen); it is lewdness,²⁶¹Further, Verse 17. meaning to say, “these are not marriages, nor fit for such a relationship, for they will not succeed [in having healthy offspring, as explained above]; rather it is lewdness, mere thoughts of indecency.” Thus the forbidden relationships are included in “the statutes,” the laws which constitute “the decrees of the King.” Now a decree is an ordinance which originates in the knowledge of the King, Who is wise in the management of His kingdom, and it is He Who knows the need for and the benefit of the command that He ordained, and He does not tell it to anyone except to His wise counsellors.

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

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

In plural form. You might ask: It is normal for verses to speak in the plural form, which means each one of you as [above] where it says תשמרו, לא תעשו, and לא תלכו? The answer is: Here it is different, because at the beginning it is written in the singular, “each and every person,” and afterwards it is written תקרבוin the plural form. Perforce תקרבו comes to include females. You might ask: Why does the verse have to [specially] include [females] regarding prohibited relationships, which is a negative commandment, for females too are obligated to keep negative commandments since they are compared to men regarding all punishments of the Torah as the Gemara says in Kidushin (35a). The answer is: Prohibited relationships are different because regarding other prohibitions of the Torah such as forbidden foods of נבילה and טריפה, it is logical that a woman is liable because she violates the prohibition the same manner a man does. But regarding prohibited relationships, the man is the active party whereas the woman does nothing for she is [as passive] as the earth. Therefore, the Torah needs to include that she too is liable.

לא תקרבו, “do not approach;” this expression is a simile for describing carnal relations. An example of the use of this expression elsewhere is in Genesis 20,4: ואבימלך לא קרב אליה, “Avimelech did not approach her,” or Isaiah 8,3: ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess;”

'אני ה I AM THE LORD, who am faithful to pay you your reward (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 13.

Faithful to give a reward. Even though here there is no performance of a mitzvah but only keeping away from a sin, and the giving of a reward is only appropriate regarding to an action, one may say that if a person had opportunity to sin and refrained himself from sinning, he is rewarded as if he performed a mitzvah, as we find in Kidushin 39b.

לא תקרבו, the reason this line is used in the plural mode is to warn both parties not to indulge in such carnal relations. The normally more passive partner is considered equally guilty.

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

THE NAKEDNESS OF THY FATHER, AND THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER, SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER. Rashi commented: “The nakedness of thy father — this refers to thy father’s wife. And the nakedness of thy mother — this is intended to include one’s own mother, although she be not the wife of one’s father. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover²⁶²Verse 8. — this is intended to include in this prohibition one’s father’s wife even after [the father’s] death.” Similarly Rashi explained: “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother.²⁶³Verse 14. And what does this [uncovering of his] nakedness mean? Thou shalt not approach to his wife.”²⁶³Verse 14. This is indeed true according to the correct sense [of the verses]. But in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin²⁶⁴Sanhedrin 54 a. the Rabbis concluded that the verses, the nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy father’s brother,²⁶³Verse 14. are prohibitions against carnal relationships with these males themselves [and not with their wives], and [are required] to make the offender liable to a double penalty if he committed it in error [lying carnally with his father or uncle].²⁶⁵If the sin were committed knowingly, there would be no point in saying that “a double penalty is incurred,” since the punishment for either of these two sins is death by stoning, and death cannot be inflicted more than once. Hence “the double penalty” must be where he committed it unwittingly, in which case he must bring two sin-offerings. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 315-317. But I wonder, according to the opinion of the Sages [who explain the verse, the nakedness of thy father as being a prohibition against lying carnally with one’s father], why did He not likewise admonish against lying carnally with a son or brother, in addition to prohibiting [sexual relationships with their] wives?²⁶⁶Verses 15-16. Perhaps the Torah was more particular in guarding the honor of the elders. However, each and every verse in this section [of forbidden relationships] constitutes only one prohibition,²⁶⁷Hence the verse before us, the nakedness of thy father and the nakedness of thy mother does not constitute two separate prohibitions as Rashi explained it [one referring to one’s father’s wife, and one to one’s own mother although she is not the wife of one’s father, as stated above], but they are one prohibition, as explained further on in the text. there being here no case of two admonitions in one prohibition, for the command concerning sisters [in Verse 9] and also daughters [in Verse 10] each constitute but one prohibition [and not, as Rashi explained there, that each verse contains two prohibitions]. The correct interpretation by way of the simple meaning of Scripture appears to me to be that the nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother [shalt thou not uncover], constitute but one negative commandment and one admonition, which forbids intercourse with one’s own mother, for in having such intercourse he thereby uncovers the nakedness of his father and that of his mother. This is the sense of the [concluding] expression in this verse, she is thy mother, meaning that you have done with her two evils, in that you have uncovered the nakedness of your mother and that of your father. Following the admonition against uncovering the nakedness of one’s father, which refers [as explained] to one’s mother, He went back [in the following Verse 8] and admonished against [uncovering] the nakedness of one’s father’s wife, although she be not one’s mother, saying, The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover; it is thy father’s nakedness.²⁶⁸Verse 8. Similarly, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother²⁶⁹Verse 14. means [as the verse itself continues], thou shalt not approach to his wife.²⁶⁹Verse 14. This is why it does not say “and” to [his wife thou shalt not approach].

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

Its plain meaning. I.e., homosexuality. Re’m writes, “You might ask against R. Yehuda and against Rashi who cites him: Why do they not use the gezeira shava ’your father’ ’your father’ from the verse “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness,” which is juxtaposed and it is a negative commandment just like it, and [instead] bring a gezeira shava from the verse in parshas Kedoshim which deals with punishment. He leaves the matter unanswered. (Nachalas Yaakov) But I say that the question itself hints [at the answer]. Because [if this was derived] from “the nakedness of your father’s wife” that is juxtaposed to it, you could ask, as it asks there (Sanhedrin 74a), “This only teaches that there is a negative commandment etc. From where do we derive that one is liable to punishment?” Because the juxtaposed verse too, is only a negative commandment! Therefore he had to learn it from “the nakedness of his father he uncovered.” See there.

וערות אמך AND THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHER [SHALT THOU NOT UNCOVER] — This is intended to include in the prohibition the marriage of one's own mother although she be not the wife of one's father (Sanhedrin 54a).

[Who] is not the wife of his father. I.e., if he was born from a woman raped or seduced by his father.

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

בת אביך [THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER] THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER [OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER… THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Also the daughter of a woman raped by one's father is implied by the term מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ.

THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SISTER, THE DAUGHTER OF THY FATHER, OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY MOTHER, WHETHER BORN AT HOME, OR BORN ABROAD, EVEN THEIR NAKEDNESS THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER. “Whether born at home, or born abroad — this means whether [the court] says to your father, ‘Keep her mother as your wife,’ or whether it has to say to him, ‘Divorce her mother,’ as for instance when she [i.e., the mother] is a mamzereth or a nethinah” [a mamzereth is the female product from one of the forbidden sexual relationships in this section, and a nethinah is a female descendant of the Gibeonites — relationships with these women being in both cases punishable by whipping]. Thus the language of Rashi. But it is not correct, since this interpretation leads to the conclusion that a sister that is born from [a woman who is herself one of] the relations forbidden [to his father],²⁷⁰I.e., if his mother had sexual relationships with one of the forbidden relations, the penalty for which is excision [and not mere whipping], it would follow that the child born from that union is not included under the terms of this prohibition; since by stating these two examples — that the mother was either a mamzereth or a nethinah, with whom, in both of which cases, sexual intercourse is punishable only with whipping — Rashi thereby seems to exclude from this verse the case where the mother was one of the forbidden relations, where the penalty is excision! This conclusion is obviously incorrect. is not included in this prohibition [against marrying one’s sister. For since Rashi explained the expressions whether born at home, or born abroad as referring to the mother, whether she is a lawful wife or a mamzereth or nethinah, both of whom are forbidden to the father only by punishment of whipping, and not by excision, unlike all forbidden relations, then the illogical result follows that if the mother were one of those relations forbidden to his father by punishment of excision, then the son’s sister born from that union would not be included in this prohibition]! And yet all [sisters] are forbidden by excision [i.e., regardless of whether the sister was born of a union itself permitted, or forbidden by whipping only, or by excision], unless she be born of a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman [in which case she is not considered his sister at all]!
And I wonder at the Rabbi [Rashi]! For in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth²⁷¹Yebamoth 23 a. in the second chapter it is clearly stated: “Perhaps I can say that this excludes a sister born of a union forbidden by whipping [as in the case where his father married a mamzereth and she gave birth to a daughter, for I might say that the marriage, being forbidden, had no validity, and she is therefore not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rav Papa: In unions punishable by whipping, the marriage, [although forbidden], has legal validity. For it is written, If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated.²⁷²Deuteronomy 21:15. Now is there before G-d a beloved one and a hated one [i.e., could it be supposed that the law should allow discrimination between the children of a favored wife and those of a hated wife]? Rather, you must say ‘beloved’ denotes ‘beloved for her well-chosen marriage’ [i.e., that it was blameless, since it was within the law], and ‘hated’ means ‘hated for her [illicit] marriage.’ And the Merciful One states, ‘ki thihyena l’ish’ (if a man ‘have’) — two wives.²⁷³The word thihyena is a word indicating legal status of marriage. Thus you must say that in the case of a marriage which is “hated” because it is punishable merely by whipping, [as in the case of a man marrying a mamzereth], the act of betrothal does take effect, and the daughter born from such a union is considered one’s “sister” with respect to the prohibition before us. Perhaps I might say that this excludes a sister born of a union punishable by excision [so that she is not his ‘sister’ in the sense that she is included in the prohibition against having intercourse with one’s sister]! Said Rava: Scripture states, The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born at home, or born abroad, which means whether [the court] can say to your father, ‘Keep [the mother as your wife],’ or whether it has to say to him, ‘Hotzei’ [as explained further on], and yet the Merciful One states that she is thy sister!”²⁷⁴Since Verse 9 before us begins, The nakedness of ‘thy sister,’ and yet goes on to mention the one ‘born abroad,’ it is clear that even a daughter born of a union which is punishable by excision [as explained further on], is a “sister” with respect to this prohibition. Now the meaning of the word hotzei is that [the court] tells him, “Take her out from your house, for she is not your [legitimate] wife, and the act of marriage has no legal validity in those cases where the union is punishable by excision or by any of the [four] deaths by the hand of the court.” And yet notwithstanding this, one is punished for having intercourse with her because she is considered his sister!²⁷⁵It is thus clear that even if the mother were one of those forbidden relations to his father with whom sexual intercourse is punishable by excision, the daughter born is still forbidden as a “sister.” This does not appear to be so from the language of Rashi before us, who singled out cases of marriages forbidden only by whipping, in which cases the betrothal is valid! See above, Note 270. Only one’s sister born from a bondwoman or a Cuthean woman is not included in this prohibition, since the offspring is of her own [legal] standing.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture the verse is stating: “The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether born of a marriage, as when the father brought the woman into the home as a wife [and she gave birth to a daughter], or born abroad, as when the man found her outside, and lay hold on her, and lie with her²⁷⁶Deuteronomy 22:28. and she gave him birth [to a daughter], thou shalt not uncover their nakedness.” Thus He mentioned [the prohibition concerning] a mother’s daughter whether she be born in wedlock or from unchastity. For even though in either case she is only his mother’s daughter and not his father’s daughter, [and if so, why did Scripture have to mention both cases], yet one might have thought that a brotherly relationship [forbidding sexual intercourse] applies only to a sister born in wedlock, but not to one born from unchastity, where everything is “free;” therefore Scripture had to admonish against all [kinds of sisters]. There is yet another verse which He stated with reference to one’s father’s daughter, stating The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father [thou shalt not uncover],²⁷⁷Verse 11. this being [a prohibition against having intercourse with] a sister who is one’s father’s daughter born of his legitimate wife. It was necessary that He state this, because having said [in Verse 9 before us], the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, without any qualification, and then in connection with the daughter of thy mother He explained whether born at home through marriage, or born abroad through unchastity, one might therefore have thought that one’s father’s daughter born in unchastity is permissible to him; for perhaps the Torah was not particular about a man’s offspring born in unchastity, because these are not known to him; therefore He said in explanation, The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter [thou shalt not uncover], thus declaring that the daughter of one’s father mentioned at first [in Verse 9 before us] is not one’s father’s daughter born of his legitimate wife [since that is specifically mentioned further on in Verse 11]. Also, because in the case of the Noachides the prohibition [against sexual intercourse] was only if the brotherhood was from the same mother, and not [if it was exclusively] from the father, Scripture therefore explains that with respect to Israelites, all are alike in the prohibition [whether they are born of one father or one mother].
The correct interpretation of this verse is what the Sages have said in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth;²⁷⁸Yebamoth 22a. “A man who has intercourse with his sister, who is also the daughter of his father’s wife [through marriage]²⁷⁹So explained ibid., in Rashi. who is not his mother,²⁸⁰This phrase is not found in our Gemara, but it is a correct explanation. is guilty both on account of his sister, and his father’s wife’s daughter.” And there in the Gemara the Rabbis explained the reason: “Observe, it is written, the nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father etc.; what need was there for the expression, the nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter etc.?²⁷⁷Verse 11. In order to teach that he is guilty both on account of his sister, and his father’s wife’s daughter.” Thus Scripture repeats certain prohibitions in order to make one [who commits these abominable practices] guilty on many counts, for even with reference to creeping things [which we are forbidden to eat] He has repeated many prohibitions regarding one matter, in order to punish the offender on all counts.

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

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

Even the daughter of a [woman] raped [by your father]. And the verse (11), “The nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife,” teaches that she must be someone whom your father could marry, excluding your sister born to your father from a maidservant whom one cannot marry [i.e., the marriage would be null and void] as it is written (Bereishis 22:5), “Remain here with the donkey,” [hinting], a people similar to a donkey.

ערות אחותך, “the nakedness of your sister;” this part of the verse concerns carnal relations without the benefit of marriage. [she is your sister from a an illicit relationship that your father indulged in. Ed.]

.בת — WHETHER SHE BE BORN IN THE HOUSE OR WHETHER SHE BE BORN OUTSIDE THE HOUSE — This means, thy sister, thy father's daughter, whether according to the law we can say to thy father, "Keep her mother as your wife" or whether we have to say to him, "Divorce her mother", as, for instance, when she is a ממזרת (the issue of a union forbidden in the Torah under the penalty of כרת) or a נתינה (the daughter of a Gibeonite woman, cf. Joshua 9:27, forbidden under the penalty of מלקות) (Yevamot 23a).

בת אביך, “the daughter of your father;” the result of your father having raped a woman, or seduced her, as a result of which she bore that daughter. This is why the Torah added the words: מולדת בית “born at home,” to describe this relationship. On the other hand, the expression מולדת חוץ, “born outside,” refers to the result of a stranger having raped or seduced your mother as a result of which she bore an illegitimate daughter.

ערות בת בנך THE NAKEDNESS OF THE DAUGHTER OF THY SON [OR THE DAUGHTER OF THY DAUGHTER THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — When it states "thy daughter״ Scripture is speaking of his daughter born of a woman whom he had outraged (similarly "the daughter of thy son" means, the son born of such a woman). This must be so, for that one is forbidden to marry one's daughter or the daughter of one's daughter who was born of one's wife we may learn from the prohibition (v. 17) in the verse beginning אשה ובתה ערות "the nakedness of a woman and her daughter" of whom it is stated "thou shalt not uncover" and which thus implies the prohibition to marry one's daughter (and forbids one's marriage with one's daughter's daughter; for Scripture continues there: “neither shalt thou take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter) whether she be begotten by him or by another man (cf. Yevamot 22b and Rashi von v. 17).

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

His daughter [from a woman he] raped. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written “your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter,” this implies that the daughter of a son or daughter she had from another man is permitted. But it is written (v. 17), “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover. The daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter”! Therefore Rashi explains: [Over here] we are dealing with a raped woman who is not his wife. Therefore [regarding her children] there is only a prohibition against the daughter of his daughter who came from his seed. But the daughter of the woman he raped came from the seed of other men, she is not included in the prohibition of “you shall not uncover” [in our verse]. And the same law applies to the daughter of his wife who is not his daughter.

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

ערות בת בנך THE NAKEDNESS OF THY SON'S DAUGHTER [… THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Since even thy son's daughter (the former being born from an אנוסה) is forbidden, the prohibition concerning thy own daughter born of thy אנוסה could be derived by a conclusion a minori ad majus (ק״ו). But because there is a rule אין מזהירין מן הדין “no prohibition can be derived by a logical conclusion" they (the Rabbis) derived it in Treatise Yevamot 3a by an analogy (גזירה שוה) based on the similar expression הנה — הנה used here and in v. 17.

We learn from the [prohibition], etc. Explanation. You might ask: Since this verse “The nakedness of your son’s daughter,” is dealing with rape, from where do we know [the prohibition against] his daughter and the daughter of his daughter or son [that resulted] from marriage? You cannot answer that this is derived through a kal vachomer from [our verse that forbids offspring of] the woman he raped, because we cannot derive prohibitions or punishment from logical arguments. Rashi answers: “His daughter and daughter’s daughter from his wife we learn...”

[This could be derived by] a קל וחומר for your [own] daughter.. Explanation: By a kal vachomer for your daughter of a raped woman. Because [the prohibition of your daughter] through marriage is [already] derived from “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter” (verse 17).

[It was] derived it from a גזירה שוה. Here, regarding the “the nakedness of your son’s daughter,” it is written הנה, and later (verse 17) where it is written “a woman and her daughter” it is also written הנה. Just as הנה written there deals with one’s daughter, so הנה written here deals with one’s daughter.

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

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

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

“You shall not approach his wife.” But regarding the nakedness of your father (above, verse 7), it does not have to write afterwards “You shall not approach his wife” to inform you what his nakedness is, [i.e., that it refers to his wife and not to himself], since the verse relies on the גזירה שוה [cited] above. (Gur Aryeh) Explanation: [Do not say that] “the nakedness of your father’s brother” is [a prohibition] in itself [and that] “you shall not approach his wife” [is a prohibition] in itself, so that “the nakedness of your father’s brother” is literal and makes one liable for two [prohibitions], for homosexuality and for “the nakedness of your father’s brother.” Because according to the plain meaning of the verse this would be illogical, as [in that case] it should have written “And you shall not approach his wife.”

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

Excluding a woman raped. Rashi does not say “[excluding] a woman raped” above (verse 11) regarding “the nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife,” because above we include [the daughter of] a raped woman to make one liable, since it is written (verse 9), “your father’s daughter,” and Rashi explains, “Even the daughter of a [woman] raped [by your father].” You might ask: What is the difference that here, the verse “your son’s wife” excludes even “a woman raped,” whereas regarding “the nakedness of your father’s wife” we do not exclude a woman raped? If this is because the verse above includes her by writing “your father’s daughter,” which implies even the daughter of a raped woman, here too it is written “your daughter-in-law,” which should imply even a raped woman? Re’m answers: “There it is different, as there are two verses and each one is expounded separately. And since one (verse 9) implies even a raped woman and one (verse 11) implies that we exclude a raped woman, in order to prevent a contradiction they expounded that it [verse 11] only comes to exclude a handmaiden or a non-Jewish woman in order to resolve [the apparent contradiction between] both verses. But here where the inclusion and the exclusion are in the same verse, they are not expounded separately. Rather each one explains the other. What daughter-in-law did I prohibit? The one that your son has a marital relationship; however, a raped woman etc., with whom your son does not have a marital relationship...

ערות אשה ובתה THE NAKEDNESS OF A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER [THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] — Scripture forbids this only if the union with the first of these (whether it be the woman or her daughter) came about through a legal marriage. That is why Scripture uses the term לא תקח, the expression employed for "taking to wife in a legal way". Similarly with reference to the punishment for such a union it states, (Leviticus 20:14) "And if a man take (יקח) a wife and her mother, [it is wickedness; they shall be burnt with fire]" — an expression for "taking" to wife in a legal way. But if one has raped a woman he is permitted to marry her daughter (Yevamot 97a).

IT IS ‘ZIMAH’ (LEWDNESS). Onkelos translated: “it is a sinful plan,” and Rashi commented thereon, “because your evil inclination counsels you to sin.” But I know of no sense to this, for with regard to all forbidden relations and all other transgressions, it is the evil inclination that counsels one to sin! [Why then is this verse prohibiting intercourse with a woman and her daughter, singled out by the use of this expression?] But the meaning of the matter is that the term zimah is derived from the expression, as ‘zamam’ (he had purposed) to do unto his brother.²⁸¹Deuteronomy 19:19. A proper thought is called m’zimah, as it said, And no ‘m’zimah’ (purpose) can be withholden from Thee,²⁸²Job 42:2. and lewdness that is thought of in secret is called zimah, similar to that which it is said, If my heart have been enticed unto a woman,²⁸³Ibid., 31:9. and Scripture concludes, For that were ‘zimah’ (a heinous crime); yea, it were an iniquity to be punished by the judges.²⁸⁴Ibid., Verse 11. Similarly, ‘v’zimatheich’ (thy lewdness) and thy harlotries;²⁸⁵Ezekiel 23:29. ‘v’zimath’ (the lewdness of) thy harlotry,²⁸⁶Jeremiah 13:27. denoting these illicit acts committed in private and in public. In my opinion Scripture states it is ‘zimah’, in the case of [sexual relationships with] a woman and her daughter, and also a woman and her mother,²⁸⁷Further, 20:14. in order to condemn the matter, saying that when one lies with the one, who is his wife, he thinks of the other one on account of their relationship and likeness, and thus lying with both of them is a cause of lewdness to him. This matter is similar to that which the Rabbis have mentioned:²⁸⁸Nedarim 20 b. “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against Me.²⁸⁹Ezekiel 20:38. These are the children [who are the offspring] of nine different dispositions [in their parents] etc.”²⁹⁰And one of these classifications is “the offspring of the hated one,” for since her husband hates her, his thoughts are of another woman, and it is therefore an act of lewdness (Rashi, Nedarim). It is for this reason that Scripture states here, the nakedness of a woman and her daughter etc., and similarly it says, And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness,²⁸⁷Further, 20:14. and does not say “the nakedness of your wife’s daughter, or your wife’s mother, you shalt not uncover” [but rather mentions them in each case together, by saying: the nakedness of a woman and her mother, or the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, in order to indicate that the prohibition is on account of thinking of the two together]. And the explanation of the verses here is as follows: At the beginning of the section He said, None of you shall approach to any that is ‘sh’eir’ (near of) flesh to him, to uncover their nakedness,²⁹¹Above, Verse 6. thus prohibiting [sexual intercourse with] those who are near of flesh to him, and He stated the reason for this to be, for theirs is thine own nakedness,²⁹²Ibid., Verse 10. and so now [in Verse 17 before us] where He prohibits the wife’s relations, He states ‘sha’arah heinah’ (they are near kinswomen), meaning to say that they are also forbidden because they [the women] are near of flesh to each other, and lying with both of them would be lewdness, as I have explained. Similarly Scripture states, and each hath lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law,²⁹³Ezekiel 22:11. meaning that he defiled her to her husband, for even when she will be with her husband, she will think of his father because of their likeness. Now Scripture calls lying with animals tevel hu,²⁹⁴Verse 23. denoting [as Rashi explained] “the mingling [from the root balal] of the human semen with that of the animal,” and so it also says of lying with a daughter-in-law that they have done ‘tevel,’²⁹⁵Further, 20:12. meaning that father and son will become joined to her as one person, and she will lie with both of them together in thought.

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

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

But if he raped a woman, he is permitted to marry her daughter. Regarding “The nakedness of your son’s daughter...” where the verse forbids the daughter of the woman raped [by one’s son], it only forbids the son’s daughter or his daughter’s daughter from the raped woman, but not her daughter or her daughter’s daughter [that did not result from the rape].

שארה הנה means, they are closely related to one another.

An [evil] plan. Because the דגש [dot] in the מ"ם implies that it is double. This results in the word זמם, which connotes thought.

זמה means, an evil plan, as the Targum renders it‎ עצת חטאין , "a sinful plan"; the term is used because it is your evil inclination which counsels you to sin.

‎ אל אחתה ‎[NEITHER SHALT THOU TAKE A WIFE] TO HER SISTER — both at the same time.

AND THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WOMAN TO HER SISTER, TO BE A RIVAL TO HER, TO UNCOVER HER NAKEDNESS, BESIDE THE OTHER IN HER LIFETIME. Here Scripture explains the reason for the prohibition, stating that it is not proper for you to take a woman in addition to her sister, to be a rival one to another, for it is fitting that they love one another and not be rivals. He did not say so with respect to a woman and her daughter,²⁹⁶Verse 17. or a woman and her mother,²⁸⁷Further, 20:14. because they are “near of flesh” and therefore forbidden even after the death of the other [while in the case of two sisters, it is only during the lifetime of his wife, even if she is already divorced from him, that he may not marry her sister].

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

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

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

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

Both as one. As it was learnt in the Mishnah, “Someone who marries a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister [together] at one time, neither are married [to him] as it is written, ’You shall not take a woman and her sister,’ [meaning], you shall have no ’taking’ [marriage] even to one of them.” The meaning of אל אחותה [lit. to her sister] is like על and means עם אחותה, “with her sister.” This is similar to על נשיו (Bereishis 28:9), which means “with his wives.”

ואשה אל אחותה, “and a woman (as a wife) in addition to her sister;” this construction is also found in “ אל חלליהם, in Joshua 13,22, where it means: “together with the others who had been slain.”

לצרר is connected with the word ,צרה — a rival (cf. I Samuel 1:6). Thus the verse signifies “thou shalt not take a wife to her sister", to make (i. e. making) the one the rival of the other.

As long as [his former wife] is alive. (Devek Tov) Because if not, why write “in her lifetime?” The verse already wrote “with her sister” which implies [taking] both together as one.

לא תקח לצרור, “you must not marry to become a rival;” the result would be that both these women (the sisters) would be widows in the house of their husbands while the husband is alive, as he is forbidden to have marital relations with either one of them.

בחייה DURING HER LIFE-TIME — This teaches you that if he divorced her (his wife) he is not allowed to marry her sister so long as she (the former) is still living (Yevamot 8b).

לגלות ערותה, “to reveal her nakedness;” to the second one while both are alive.

עליה, “with her;” we find the expression על used in the sense of “with,” also Leviticus 25,31 על שדה הארץ יחשב, “they will be considered as belonging with the fields of the country.

AND UNTO A WOMAN DURING HER SEPARATION FOR HER UNCLEANNESS, THOU SHALT NOT APPROACH TO UNCOVER HER NAKEDNESS. Scripture prohibited [having intercourse with] a menstruant woman for the reason I have mentioned,²⁹⁷Above, Verse 6. that the Torah permitted sexual intercourse only for the sake of raising children,²⁹⁸See my Hebrew commentary p. 104, that Rabbeinu Bachya questioned this attitude of Ramban. It would also appear from Ramban’s quote of Ibn Ezra further on in Verse 20, that the purpose of sexual intercourse is threefold, and the raising of children is only one purpose. Hence Ramban’s statement here must be understood in the sense that the “principal” purpose thereof is the raising of children. and since the whole child or the greater part thereof is created out of the woman’s blood, as I have already mentioned,²⁹⁹Above, at beginning of Seder Tazria. and from the blood of menstruation it is not created at all [therefore the Torah prohibited intercourse with her during the period of her impurity]. Indeed, how could a child be formed out of this blood, since it is deadly poisonous, capable of causing the death of any creature that drinks or eats it! Now when the womb contains a large amount of this blood of menstruation, the woman cannot become pregnant, as this blood is not endowed at all with the capacity for forming [a child]. Even if she were to become pregnant from other blood, and then derive nourishment from this blood, the child would die. Physicians have also mentioned already that if the foetus derives nourishment from the best of blood, and all its nutriment be of the best quality, but some of this blood of menstruation is mixed with it, it will cause it to go bad, and produce in the child inflammatory swellings and sores of all kinds. And in the opinion of our Rabbis,³⁰⁰Tanchuma, Metzora 1. even if a small part of this [blood of menstruation] remains, in the foetus, the child will be a leper. By virtue, then, of all these reasons it was fitting that the Torah prohibit intercourse with a menstruant. The doctors have also told us in connection with it, a true experience, which is one of the wondrous works of Him Who is perfect in knowledge³⁰¹Job 37:16. in creation, that if a menstruant woman at the beginning of her issue were to concentrate her gaze for some time upon a polished iron mirror, there would appear in the mirror red spots resembling drops of blood, for the bad part therein [i.e., in the issue] that is by its nature harmful, causes a certain odium, and the unhealthy condition of the air attaches to the mirror, just as a viper kills with its gaze. And surely it is harmful to have intercourse with her then, since physically and mentally she is attached to the man’s body and mind. Therefore Scripture prohibited it by saying, and her impurity will be upon him,³⁰²Above, 15:24. meaning that her condition is a contagious one. It is with reference to this that it states, the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity,³⁰³Ezekiel 36:17. always mentioning in connection with her the term “impurity,” which is like that used in speaking of a creeping thing and of a leper, in which cases their impurity is within their bodies. It is possible that this is the sense of the expression, he hath bared her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood,³⁰⁴Further, 20:18. for that blemished fountain should be covered, and not bared in order to draw its bad and extremely harmful waters. Thus intercourse has been prohibited to the holy seed³⁰⁵Isaiah 6:13. all the days of her impurity, until she immerses herself in water [i.e., in a ritual pool],³⁰⁶For no amount of washing the body can take the place of ritual immersion, where such is prescribed. for then she will be purified also in her thoughts,³⁰⁷This is obviously a reference to what Rambam wrote in his Mishneh Torah at the end of Hilchoth Mikvaoth, on the significance of immersion, that it is not merely a matter of removing mud or dirt which may be removed by water, but “it is a Scriptural decree, the validity of the act depending upon the disposition of the heart. It is for this reason that the Sages have said. ‘If he immersed himself without intention, it is as though he had not immersed himself at all’ (Chagigah 18 b) … Thus he whose heart intends to purify himself, becomes purified as soon as the [actual] immersion is accomplished.” It is clear, then, that since both body and soul must participate in the act of immersion, the effect and potency of the purification applies to both body and soul as Ramban here states, “for then she will be purified also in her thoughts, and become completely clean.” See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 117-119. and become completely clean [in body and mind].

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

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

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

AND THOU SHALT NOT LIE CARNALLY³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. WITH THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “For there is a threefold purpose to sexual intercourse: one is to beget children, a second is to relieve the body of its fluids, and the third is for passion, which is likened to that of the animals. Now when Scripture said l’zara,³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. it means ‘even l’zara’ [i.e., even for the purpose of begetting children], and thus it prohibited [having intercourse with another man’s wife] altogether.” It is possible that He said l’zara in order to mention the reason for the prohibition, since it will not be known to whom “the child” belongs, and as a result, great and wicked abominations³⁰⁹See Ezekiel 8:6 and 9. might be done by both.³¹⁰I.e., both the child and the father. For not knowing their true relationship, they might marry one of the forbidden relations, etc. Now Scripture did not mention [this expression l’zara further on when it speaks] of the punishment [for this sin],³¹¹Further, 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife … both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. because even for intimacy of the first stage without emitting seed, he is already liable to punishment. It is for this reason that [in the case of a suspected adulteress] Scripture states, and a man lie with her carnally,³¹²Numbers 5:13. The Hebrew shichvath zera literally means “a lying of seed.” for it is on account of the zera³¹³Literally: “seed.” In the light of what Ramban has written above, it may also mean that his jealousy is aroused on account of his children, whose legitimacy will henceforth be questioned. that he suspects her. Similarly in the case of a betrothed bondswoman it also says, lieth carnally³¹⁴Further, 19:20. Here too the term used is shichvath zera, which literally means “a lying of seed.” with her, because the prohibition is on account of the child that he will beget from a bondwoman [who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant].³¹⁵Kerithoth 11 a.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that since another man’s wife is completely forbidden to one, whosoever toucheth her shall not go unpunished,³¹⁶Proverbs 6:29. therefore Scripture had to say here l’zara.³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. For had it said only: “and thou shalt not lie with thy neighbor’s wife,” it would have appeared that it forbids [by punishment of excision] even lying with her just for embracing and kissing, since here [in this section] it speaks only of those forbidden relations that are punishable with excision. Therefore it was necessary to mention that the intimacy was l’zara,³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. in order to explain that He is prohibiting here sexual intercourse. This is also the reason for the expression in the case of the betrothed bondswoman,³¹⁴Further, 19:20. Here too the term used is shichvath zera, which literally means “a lying of seed.” because she is like another man’s wife. Similarly it states in the case of another man’s wife, And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife,³¹⁷Further, 20:10. and it does not state “lieth,” for it is not mere lying with her that He prohibits [under punishment of death]. He does not state here [in the verse before us forbidding intercourse with another man’s wife], “to uncover her nakedness,” for He only mentions this expression with reference to the next of kin and a menstruant,³¹⁸Verse 19. since the prohibition there is because of the uncovering, just as He said, for he hath made naked his near kin.³¹⁹Further, 20:19.

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

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

AND THOU SHALT NOT GIVE ANY OF THY SEED ‘L’HA’AVIR’ (TO PASS THROUGH)³²⁰I.e., to let any of them pass through [the fire] to Molech. The implications will be fully discussed in the text. ‘LAMOLECH’ (TO MOLECH). This was an idol the name of which was “Molech.” Scripture mentions it with the definite article,³²¹Since the prefix lamed [in the word lamolech] is vowelled with a pathach [instead of with a shva which would have made it l’molech], it is quite clear that it is speaking of an idol that is known. See Ramban on Exodus 22:19. (Vol. II, p. 390) quoting Rashi. since it was well-known to them from Egypt. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that it is possible that Molech is identical with Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites.³²²I Kings 11:5. And so indeed it would appear, for it is written, Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the detestation of Moab … and for Molech the detestation of the children of Ammon.³²³Ibid., Verse 7. Milcom of Verse 5, is thus identical with Molech of Verse 7. Hence the idol by the name of Molech mentioned here in the Torah appears to be, as Ibn Ezra wrote, Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites. And this [name Milcom] was also well-known to them.³²⁴Ramban’s intention is to forestall the following question: If, as we have said, Molech is the same as Milcom, why does Scripture call Milcom the detestation of the children of Ammon, when from the text here before us in the Torah it is plain that they knew the idol already from Egypt [as is explained in the text above]? To this question Ramban answers that it was also known to them by the name “Milcom” [in the time of Solomon]. Hence Scripture used that name.
Now Rashi commented: “And this was the manner in which the Molech was worshipped: he [the father] would hand over his son to the priests, and the priests lit two large pyres [one opposite the other], and they made the child pass on foot between the two fires. Thou shalt not give, this refers to [the father] handing over [the child] to the priests. ‘L’ha’avir lamolech’ is the passing through the open fire.” But this is not correct. For the Rabbis have already said in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin:³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b. “If he made him pass on foot [between the fires] the father is free from punishment [because that was not the customary way of worshipping the idol]; rather, [he is liable only if it was] ‘like a leaping place of Purim,’”³²⁶“Like children leaping over a bonfire” (Rashi ibid.). The Talmudic text k’mishvarto d’puria is thus explained by Rashi “as a leaping place of Purim,” i.e., like a bonfire made on Purim for merriment, over which children leap. Ramban will later on explain that at the Molech the child was passed through the flames so many times that the flames actually burnt him. meaning that he made him pass through the actual fire [by leaping through it]. Scripture mentions [both conditions to make the father liable to punishment]: a “giving” as it is said, and thou shalt not ‘give’ any of thy seed …], and the act of making him “pass through the fire” [as it is said in Deuteronomy 18:10: There shall not be found among you anyone that ‘maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire’], so that the father does not incur punishment unless he delivers his child to the priests [of Molech] and he [i.e., the father] made him pass through the fire, as is explained in Tractate Sanhedrin.³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b. Similarly, that which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote that the father hands him over to the priests and they make him pass through the fire — and so he wrote also in his commentaries to Tractate Sanhedrin³²⁷Ibid., 64 a. — that does not appear to be so from the language of the Rabbis here in the Gemara.³²⁸The Gemara speaks there of a case where “he made all his offspring pass through the fire” — an expression which indicates that it is the father himself who makes them pass through the fire. Moreover, how could the father be liable to death for the worship of Molech done by others [i.e., the priests]?³²⁹In other words, if, as Rashi said, it is the priests who perform the rite of passing the child through the fire, it is they who do the forbidden act of worship and not the father. So how could he be made liable to punishment for the act of other people? The mere handing over of the child to the priests is not in itself an act of worship. The very language of Scripture, that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire,³³⁰Deuteronomy 18:10. indicates that it is the father himself who passes him through the fire. Rather, the matter is as follows: the father himself delivers the child to the priests in the name of their detestation. It is with reference to this that it is written, he hath ‘given’ his seed unto Molech,³³¹Further, 20:3. similar to what is done within the Sanctuary precincts, as it is written, and he shall give them unto the priest.³³²Above, 15:14. Perhaps the priests waved the child before the Molech, or brought it near the idol, and then they returned it to the hands of the father, and he took him and passed him through the open flame, this being the sense of the expression, he that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire.³³⁰Deuteronomy 18:10. And so the Rabbis have said in the Yerushalmi:³³³Yerushalmi Sanhedrin VII, 10. On “Yerushalmi,” see Note 44 in Seder Metzora. “[The penalty of death] is never incurred [by the father] unless he delivers the child to the priests, and then he [the father] takes him and passes him through the fire,” that is to say, he takes the child from the priests, and he himself passes him through the fire. However, there was no actual burning of the child. For the Rabbis have said,³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b. “If one passed himself through the fire, he is not liable” [to death], which shows that the offender is alive even after he has passed through the fire. And so did Rashi explain [that there was no actual burning of the child].³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b.
Yet notwithstanding all this, it appears to me on the basis of decisive verses that the child was actually consumed by the flames, for Scripture states, and their sons, whom they bore unto Me, they have also made them pass through unto them ‘to be devoured,’³³⁴Ezekiel 23:37. and further on there it says, and when they had slain their children to their idols,³³⁵Ibid., Verse 39. meaning that they passed him through the fire until he was burnt or died in the fire, this being “the slaying” [mentioned in the verse], for the expression they have made them pass through unto them is a reference to the worship of Molech, and Scripture states to be devoured and also mentions the term slaying! If so, when the Rabbis said [with reference to the Molech that it was] “like a leaping place of Purim,”³²⁶“Like children leaping over a bonfire” (Rashi ibid.). The Talmudic text k’mishvarto d’puria is thus explained by Rashi “as a leaping place of Purim,” i.e., like a bonfire made on Purim for merriment, over which children leap. Ramban will later on explain that at the Molech the child was passed through the flames so many times that the flames actually burnt him. they meant to say that they made the child pass through the flame many times, until he died in the burning fire. Thus by law of the Torah the father is liable to punishment from the moment of the child’s first passing through, as soon as the fire takes hold of him, such as where one of his limbs took fire. It is for this reason that the Rabbis had to say that he who passes himself through the fire is not liable, [since the liability to punishment begins at the moment when the fire takes hold of one of his limbs, when he is still alive]. But the fire actually consumed the victim, as this was their sacrifice to Molech. And the expression of ma’avir ba’eish [which until now we have understood as “passing through the fire”] always denotes “something burnt by fire, but not [totally] consumed thereby,” for they used to put [the victim] in the fire, and then remove the body from there, and not let it turn into ashes like burnt [sacrifices], similar to utensils of gentiles [which, in order to be purified from the forbidden food they have absorbed], are made white-hot in the flame, and it is said of them, ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean.³³⁶Numbers 31:23. And it is said of the Ammonites, and he made them pass through the brick-kiln,³³⁷II Samuel 12:31. meaning that he burnt them just as they do to bricks in a baking furnace. If so, ‘ma’avir’ his son or his daughter through the fire³³⁰Deuteronomy 18:10. means placing him in the fire so that it should take hold of him, not merely passing him through it. And this is the meaning of ha’avarah which is mentioned in connection with the Molech, which was by fire according to the opinion of our Rabbis,³²⁵Sanhedrin 64 b. who derived it by means of a similarity of the term ha’avarah [“passing through,” mentioned here in the verse before us, and in Deuteronomy 18:10]: “just as there the ‘passing through’ is in fire [as it is said, There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter ‘pass through the fire’], so here too the meaning is through the fire [although it is not clearly stated], and just as here it is to the Molech, so there too it is to Molech.” Proof to the words of the Rabbis [that the meaning of this ‘passing through’ mentioned here was by fire], is that which is written of King Josiah, And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.³³⁸II Kings 23:10. Thus the term ha’avarah (‘passing through’) mentioned here in connection with Molech means by fire. So also is it written of King Manasseh: He also made his children ‘to pass through the fire’ in the valley of the son of Hinnom.³³⁹II Chronicles 33:6. And I have found it written of King Ahaz, And he also made his son ‘to pass through the fire,’ according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Eternal cast out from before the children of Israel,³⁴⁰II Kings 16:3. and in the Book of Chronicles it is stated [of the same king], and ‘he burnt’ his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the Eternal cast out.³⁴¹II Chronicles 28:3. If so, ha’avarah (the ‘passing through’) in fact was a burning with real fire.³⁴²Ramban is thus suggesting that the word ha’avarah (“passing through”) was really an hav’arah (an actual burning of fire), since the verse in Kings speaking of King Ahaz uses the term ha’avarah, while the verse in Chronicles describing the same acts of the same king uses the term hav’arah. Thus it is clear that the two words are identical in meaning in this context.
Now that which Scripture states, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim,³⁴³II Kings 17:31. [and it does not mention Molech], that was another idol, which was worshipped by burning the victims completely as a sacrifice [which was burnt to ashes]. They used to worship the Baal in a similar manner, as it is written of Jeremiah, Go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom,³⁴⁴Jeremiah 19:2. and there it says further, and they have filled this place with the blood of innocents; and have built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons in the fire ‘for burnt-offerings’ unto Baal; which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind.³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 4-5. And it is further written, And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to make their sons and their daughters pass through unto Molech; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind, that they should do this abomination.³⁴⁶Ibid., 32:35. However, due to the fact that these two [last mentioned] verses speak of the high places of Baal, both being in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and the admonition in connection with both of them is identical: which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind, and the Molech was [also] there in that impure place, as it is written in connection with King Josiah,³⁴⁷And he defiled Topheth which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech (II Kings 23:10). The verse was mentioned above by Ramban (see text at Note 338). it would appear from all this that they used to burn their children as sacrifices to Molech, which was the Baal, both names being closely associated, and meaning royalty and lordship. This is not the Baal of Peor³⁴⁸Numbers 25:3. or Baal-zebub,³⁴⁹II Kings 1:2. for this one [referred to by Jeremiah] was called Baal without any qualification, as Molech was so called, [without any qualification]. Scripture mentions in connection with the worship thereof the term ha’avarah (passing through),³⁴⁶Ibid., 32:35. because the main act of worship was by passing the children through [the two pyres] until the fire took hold of them, and it calls it “burning”³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 4-5. because they would die there. That is why they are called “burnt-offerings” [as it is said, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt-offerings].³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 4-5. Similarly, I am of the opinion that the gods of Sepharvaim³⁴³II Kings 17:31. are also identified with Molech, for their surnames [Adrammelech and Anammelech]³⁴³II Kings 17:31. denote kingship [as the word melech indicates]. Both of them were worshipped in the same way, although one was called Adra,³⁵⁰In Sanhedrin 63 b the Talmud explains the word to mean “the mule.” The word adar in Aramaic means “distinction,” and the mule is so called because it gives distinction to its owner when travelling, because it carries all his belongings. The name Adrammelech thus means “The mule is the king,” or “the animal which gives distinction to the king.” See II Samuel 13:29, that the mule was ridden by princes, and I Kings 1:33 that it was ridden by the king. Ramban in explaining Adrammelech to be identical with Molech, thus suggests that the Sepharvites called their idol Adar, a name meaning “distinction,” and Adrammelech is “the king of distinction.” which is an expression of respect, and the second was called Ana which is of the root oneh (answers),³⁵¹This term according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin ibid.) is a reference to the horse because it “answers” its master when engaged in battle. See my Hebrew commentary p. 107, Note 44. The name Anammelech means “The horse is the king,” or “the animal which answers the king” in battle. Ramban here suggests, then, that Molech was called Anammelech because “he is the king who answers.” and the name “melech” was attached to both, which is like Molech. The “burning” mentioned in connection with them³⁴³II Kings 17:31. was the death of the victims by fire, as I have explained [above]. But if we were to say that these detestations [Adrammelech and Anammelech] were not the Molech, then it is possible that because they were worshipped by means of sons and daughters being brought to them in fire, in a similar manner to that which it says about the Molech, therefore their names [Adra and Ana] were combined with his name, and form a melech (king) or Baal, but the modes of worship were not the same. For the Molech was worshipped with “passing through” [the fire], and the gods of Sepharvaim with burning,³⁴³II Kings 17:31. and the Baal with slaughtering first and then burning, like burnt-offerings.³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 4-5. And it is further said [in Jeremiah] that in the place of the Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom³³⁸II Kings 23:10. there were also high places to Baal [as mentioned in connection with King Josiah, that he defiled that place so that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech], and it also mentions there the Molech [and Molech and Baal were to some extent identical, as stated above]. Thus that which Scripture states, And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to make their sons and their daughters to pass through unto Molech³⁴⁶Ibid., 32:35. [which would seem to indicate that Molech and Baal are entirely identical, contrary to what we have said above], really means: “and” to make their sons and their daughters pass through [the fire] unto Molech.
Now our Rabbis have said:³⁵²Sanhedrin 63 b. “The father of Hezekiah king of Judah too [i.e., Ahaz] wanted to do so to him [in his infancy], and to burn him in the fire, but his mother saved him from death by rubbing him with the oil of³⁵³“With the oil of” — this phrase is not mentioned in the Gemara. It is evidently Ramban’s comment as to how it was done. Rashi, however writes that the application was done with the blood of the salamander (see following note). a salamander.”³⁵⁴“A small reptile engendered in a fire that has burnt continually for seven years, and he who covers himself with its blood becomes fire-proof” (Rashi ibid.). Now Ahaz “made him pass through” to Molech, as it is written, And he also made his son ‘to pass through’ the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Eternal cast out from before the children of Israel,³⁴¹II Chronicles 28:3. this expression being identical to that used in the case of Molech; if so, [the “passing through” to Molech] meant actual burning until the fire took hold of the victim and he died. However, the righteous [Hezekiah] was saved by this salamander, which the Holy One, blessed be He, created for his sake.
By way of the simple meaning of Scripture they³⁵⁵Evidently the reference is to certain commentators. But I have not identified these. have said that the matter of “making a son or daughter pass through the fire” was one of the forms of sorcery, for it is in connection with sorcery that it is said, There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer.³⁵⁶Deuteronomy 18:10. The fact that all these practices are mentioned together proves that the rite of “passing through the fire” was also some form of witchcraft, while the actual burning of the victim was an entirely different matter, since that was a form of idol worship to Molech. All this we would say according to the plain meaning of Scripture. But see further, Note 359. And in the case of King Manasseh Scripture likewise states, He also made his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom; and he practised soothsaying, and used enchantments, and practised sorcery and appointed them that divined by a ghost or a familiar spirit,³⁵⁷II Chronicles 33:6. Here too the same reasoning as in the previous note applies. and it is further written, and they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments,³⁵⁸II Kings 17:17. Here likewise it would seem that “passing through the fire” was a form of witchcraft, something different from the worship of Molech. But see the following note. [these verses indicating that the rite of “passing through the fire” was some form of witchcraft], and the Molech was an idol to which they offered little children.³⁵⁹Accordingly, in line with the plain meaning of Scripture we would say that the rite of “passing through the fire” was something different from the burning of the victim to Molech. But since we have found it written etc. (see text). But since we have found it written, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech³⁶⁰II Kings 23:10. [which shows clearly that “passing through the fire” was in connection with the worship of Molech], the words of our Rabbis that all forms of worshipping Molech were by fire, have been shown to be trustworthy. But it is [also] possible [as the verses indicate] that they used this rite for false divination and to prophesy by means of it, according to their foolishness, these being the prophets of Baal who would first offer to him sacrifices of children, and then have vain dreams and a lying divination.³⁶¹Ezekiel 13:7. Therefore the Torah associates the matter of the Molech with that of [the various kinds of] divination. For here [in the Book of Leviticus] it placed [the subject of the Molech] immediately before the soul that turneth unto the ghosts, and unto the familiar spirits,³⁶²Further, 20:6. and in the Book of Deuteronomy³⁶³Deuteronomy 18:9-14. the whole section is devoted to the subject of those who predict the future falsely.
Now Scripture [here in the verse before us] states that the act of passing children through the fire to Molech constitutes a profaning of G-d’s Name,³⁶⁴The verse here concludes, Neither shalt thou profane the Name of thy G-d. and in the other section [i.e., in Seder Kedoshim] it adds, to defile My Sanctuary, and to profane My Holy Name.³⁶⁵Further, 20:3. Perhaps the meaning thereof is as follows: [To give of one’s children to Molech is] “to defile the people that is sanctified to My Name, whom I commanded, Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy, for I the Eternal, Who sanctify you, am holy;³⁶⁶This is a combination of two verses, Above, 11:44 and further, 21:8. — And to profane My holy Name,³⁶⁵Further, 20:3. when they commit this serious sin before Me.” For thus He speaks of the serious sins, such as, and a man and his father go unto the same maid, to profane My holy Name.³⁶⁷Amos 2:7. It is possible that He says so [to defile My Sanctuary,³⁶⁵Further, 20:3. in connection with the Molech], because a father who sacrifices of his seed to Molech and afterwards comes into G-d’s Sanctuary to bring an offering, defiles the Sanctuary, as his offerings are defiled and are an abomination to G-d, and he himself is forever defiled, having become impure by the evil he did; just as He said of [those who turn to] the ghosts and the familiar spirits, seek them not out, to be defiled by them,³⁶⁸Further, 19:31. and it is further written, and because they had defiled it with their idols.³⁶⁹Ezekiel 36:18. And He also mentions [in connection with the Molech] the profaning of G-d’s Name [as it says, and to profane My holy Name³⁶⁵Further, 20:3.], because when the nations hear that he honored the Molech with his seed, and to G-d he brought an offering of his cattle, it will be a profaning of G-d’s Name. It is concerning this that the prophet Ezekiel said, and their sons, whom they bore unto Me, they have also made them pass through unto them to be devoured. Moreover this they have done unto Me: they have defiled My Sanctuary in the same day.³⁷⁰Ibid., 23:37-38. And the prophet continues, For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into My Sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of My house.³⁷¹Ibid., Verse 39.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], Israel the holy seed³⁷²Isaiah 6:13. is born in the house of G-d, this being the meaning of the expression whom they bore unto Me.³⁷³Ezekiel 23:37. Thus he who sacrifices one of G-d’s people to the Molech, defiles G-d’s Sanctuary and profanes His Great Name, similar to the expression, And he [i.e., the High Priest] shall not profane his seed among his people.³⁷⁴Further, 21:15. It is for this reason that He said [of the person who gives of his seed to Molech], And I will set My face against that man,³⁷⁵Ibid., 20:3. [and again], Then will I set My face against that man.³⁷⁶Ibid., Verse 5. The student learned in the mystic lore of the Cabala will understand.

ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך ולא תחלל את שם אלוקיך, the difference between offering sacrifices to the Moloch and to G’d respectively is that to G’d only animals are sacrificed, whereas to the deity known as Moloch, human beings, specifically one’s son, is sacrificed. This would indicate that the worshipper of the Moloch considers him as more powerful than G’d, for why else would he sacrifice his dearest possession, his son, to him and not to G’d?

למולך, “to the Moloch.” Nachmanides writes that this word represents a certain type of idolatry, and the reason that the Torah dignifies this type of idolatry by using the prefix ה i.e. the vowel patach at the beginning which substitutes for the definitive article “the,” is due to the fact that this particular idolatry was extremely well known in Egypt, where the Israelites had become familiar with it. Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that it was the chief deity of the people בני עמון, and may have been known to the Israelites as such.

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

לא תתן refers to “the handing over of the child” to the priests.

'אני ה, I have never changed since the time I have sworn to Avraham “to be your G’d and for seed after you.” (Genesis 17,7). Seeing that G’d in this chapter had spoken about incest, matters related to human seed, and His interest in keeping this seed pure so that the holy spirit would be able to descend upon such people, He spoke about the Moloch whose servants had intended to ensure that their other children would be blessed with every kind of success in recognition of their having given the oldest to their G’d. G’d is on record here that doing something like this, far from being a way to sanctifying G’d’s name would be the most potent way to desecrating His name. Such practices, far from attracting the benevolent presence of G’d, the Shechinah, would prevent this presence of G’d from taking up residence among the Jewish people..

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

להעביר למלך — this refers to the “passing through the fire".

Now the reason for the prohibitions against lying carnally with a male,³⁷⁷Verse 22. or an animal,³⁷⁸Verse 23. is well-known, as it is an abominable act and is not for the preservation of the human species, because [the copulation] of [male and male or of] man and animal will not beget offspring. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented:³⁷⁷Verse 22. “Since we find [Lot’s daughter using] the expression, Behold, ‘shachavti’ (I lay) yesternight with my father,³⁷⁹Genesis 19:34. [and she did not say, nishkavti, in the passive, or “Behold, shachav imi avi, — my father lay with me,” this shows that the term shachav, although in the active form, refers to the person who commits that act as well as the passive partner who permits herself or himself to be thus abused]; thus it follows that the verse, And with a male ‘lo thishkav’ (thou shalt not lie),³⁷⁷Verse 22. constitutes a prohibition both against the one who actively commits pederasty, and against the one who permits himself to be thus abused.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra.] But if it be as Ibn Ezra said, why is the woman not included in the verse, And thou shalt not lie with any beast,³⁷⁸Verse 23. [and it is clear that she is not so included from the fact that Scripture had to continue, Neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto],³⁷⁸Verse 23. for women are included in all admonitions of the Torah? Rather, the use of the expression, Behold, ‘shachavti’ (I lay) yesternight with my father³⁷⁹Genesis 19:34. is due to the fact that it was Lot’s daughters who, through lying with him, [were instrumental in that affair] in order to beget seed of him. As is known, the seed comes either from the movement of the whole body, just as foam is formed in the mouths of galloping horses, or it is brought forth in the veins nearby [the sexual organ], where it gathers by the continuing motion thereof until it is emitted. Were they then not to have lain with Lot, his seed would not have come forth, for in his drunkenness he was like a silent stone.

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

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה, some people attempt to deceive others into believing that they are women instead of men.

תועבה היא, “it is an abomination;” the letter ו in the word הוא is vocalised with a chirik״ i.e. it is read as such, it is feminine. [I have not understood the author’s reference to Job here. Ed.] 36,32.

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

לרבעה, “to defile herself;” the letter ה at the end has a dot in it, indicating that it is not the beast that becomes defiled, but the woman who committed this perversion. On the other hand, the same letter in the same word in Leviticus 20,16 is “weak,”

תבל הוא, “it is a perversion. The letter ו, here has the vowel shuruk, i.e. the word תבל is a masculine noun. [Our author points this out as in other places the word תבל, meaning “universe,” is feminine, as in Psalms 24,1; 98,7; 50,12; etc., etc. [The author may wish to see in this treatment of the word here as masculine, proof that the Torah always considers the male human being as the initiator of these kinds of perversions. Ed.]

אל תטמאו בכל אלה, even by merely being physically close to such incestuous members of the opposite sex.

אל תטמאו בבל אלה, "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things." Torat Kohanim comments that this refers to both some of them and all of them. This seems very strange as the Torah could have simply stated that we must not defile ourselves by sexual intercourse with even a single one of the categories mentioned in this chapter and we could have avoided any chance of misunderstanding. Another difficulty is the ending of the verse "for the nations whom I drive out on your account have become defiled with all these." In view of these words how can we interpret the first half to mean that defilement through involvement in only one of these forbidden unions is meant? The words בכל אלה are not clear; they appear to mean that every one of the Canaanite nations indulged in all of the abominable practices listed in this chapter.

Do not defile yourselves in all these [ways]. This implies that they should not come to the extreme of evil that the land will be defiled in all these ways. However, afterwards (v. 26) it says they should not do any of the abominations, which implies that even with a few the land will be defiled. It seems that this is why it mentions two types of punishments — being expelled by the land and having their souls cut off. At first it warns that they should not defile themselves by doing all these, for in all these the nations defiled themselves. They reached the extreme that the land was defiled and He judged its iniquities upon it. The land became like a sick person that vomits, and it expelled its inhabitants. Its measure was filled, and the way of a full measure is to spill and expel its contents because it cannot contain more. Therefore, the Torah warns them that the same should not happen to you, for when a catastrophe comes it destroys the good with the bad. And thus they were exiled in “the exile of the craftsmen and the sentries” and that of Yirmiyahu. Afterwards it warns them, “You shall adhere to My statutes … and not do any of these abominations” — you should not do even some of them. All these abominations were done by the people of the land who came before you and they were punished by being expelled. However, if you will do some of them you will not be expelled; you will not be liable the punishment of being expelled, nevertheless, there is another punishment. And that is that “anyone who will do any of these abominations,” even some of them, although judgment does not require that the good and the bad be destroyed as one, nevertheless, at least, “their souls shall be cut off, those that do these things”.

כי בכל אלה נטמאו הגוים, for the original depravity of the nations dwelling in Canaan before you involved precisely this ritual contamination. They did not start by actually sleeping with the partners outlawed to them, but by only fondling them.

We may have to resort to a kabbalistic approach in order to properly understand our verse. This involves knowing the reason why the Torah has not taken us into its confidence concerning the relative importance of one commandment when compared to another; nor has the Torah informed us about specific סגולות treasures or characteristics of individual commandments. On the contrary, when speaking about the Torah, Solomon says in Proverbs 5,6: "She does not chart a path of life, her ways are unstable, you do not know them." Our sages in Avot 2,1 tell us that we should not say that one particular מצוה is important whereas another is not so important. The Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1,1 as well as Devarim Rabbah 6 provide proof for this by saying G'd allocates the same amount of reward for fulfilling a "minor" commandment as He does for someone who fulfils a "major" commandment. We have good reason to believe that G'd considers some commandments as "major" and others as "minor." Why then did the Torah not provide us with a key to help us determine the relative importance of the commandments?

Presumably the reason is that the so-called "minor" commandments are as necessary in G'd's plans for our personality development as are the so-called "major" commandments. Each מצוה is a סגולה, a treasure of a unique kind. What does it matter that the reward for one kind of מצוה is greater or smaller than the reward for its counterpart seeing that each reward is something unique, contributes in a unique manner to our personality development to ensure our progress to becoming the most perfect human being? This is why G'd presented the commandments as if they were all of the same level of importance in order that the Israelites should perform all of them. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 9,10: "whatever you are able to do with your might, do it!"

Another reason may be this. There are commandments the fulfilment of which may result in material wealth in this world, whereas others may result in longevity in this world. The performance of still other commandments may determine if someone will be blessed with children, etc., etc. G'd was afraid that if He revealed to us which commandment would bring which blessing in its wake some people who are interested only in a particular blessing would neglect performance of those commandments which promise blessings they do not particularly care for. This is why G'd decided to conceal these details to ensure that we endeavour to observe and carry out all the commandments. This encourages a person to perform a מצוה which has a unique benefit for his wellbeing though he does not know of this. This helps us understand why we sometimes observe people who are basically wicked and non-religious enjoy prosperity and peace of mind. They may have performed one of the commandments whose specific סגולה it is to bestow on him economic success and peace of mind in this world. The sins these people are guilty of do not prevent G'd from letting them enjoy the particular blessing they are entitled to on the basis of the מצרה they did fulfil. Whatever we have written thus far about the Torah keeping us in the dark about the relative importance of different commandments, applies only to the performance of positive commandments.When it comes to the severity of transgressing negative commandments, however, the Torah has made it plain by means of the penalties provided which transgressions are more serious than others. Some transgressions are of consequence only to man's life in the hereafter. This is why people guilty of them may enjoy a successful life in this world, not knowing that all this is at the expense of their share of the life in the hereafter. Other transgressions result in afflictions long delayed but in this life. Still others may result in relatively benign punishments; there are others in which the penalty is of a particularly harsh and cruel-appearing nature. You will find that many sinners were obviously guilty of sins for which the Torah threatened כרת, untimely death, and yet we find these sinners alive and well into ripe old age. How are we to explain this? Clearly, some people receive their due in this world whereas others receive it only after departing this life. It is a psychological fact that most people feel more concerned about what might happen to them in this life than about what awaits them in the hereafter.

We know that G'd is very strict with even the people closest to Him and does not allow them to speak an untruth or even something which may be interpreted as a lie. When Rabbi Akiva returned from his journey to the פרדס, the regions where the secrets of Torah are to be found, he warned his colleagues that when they approached an area that appeared like transparent stones of marble [like crystallised water Ed.], they should not mistakenly describe it as water (Chagigah 14). If such restrictions apply to humans, how much more so may we expect the Torah not to express itself in a misleading fashion?

This brings us to the explanation of our verse. The penalty the Torah threatens for violation of the sexual mores is expulsion from the Holy Land by the land itself, and is applicable only to the commission of one of the many detestable acts described in this chapter as I will demonstrate shortly. Other types of abominations of a sexual nature result in different kinds of retribution, each according to its specific transgression. G'd did not want to point out which one of the many forbidden sexual unions described in our chapter results in the sinner being spewed out by the Holy Land in order that a person should worry about this prospect when contemplating violation of any (i.e. all) of these prohibitions. This is in accordance with the psychology that one worries more about a penalty that has been spelled out than about one which is couched in vague terminology. Seeing each of the prospective violations might result in the sinner being spewed out of the country he has more reason to worry. The words אל תטמאו בכל אלה therefore means "do not defile yourselves through any one of these abominations." כי בכל אלה נטמאו הגוים אשר אני משלח מפניכם ותטמא הארץ ואפקוד עונה, means that there is a single cause, i.e. one of the many abominations, which was the reason the Canaanites lost their country. If that was so, it is clear that also the words אל תטאמו בכל אלה refers to a single sin and not the sin of violating all the abominations mentioned in our chapter.

The Torah also writes ושמרתם..ולא תעשו מכל התועבות, "be careful not to commit any of these abominations." This verse tells you that the inhabitants of Canaan were indeed guilty of engaging in all of these perverse practices, that from a moral point of view they may all be subsumed under the same heading. The only abominations which are not potentially subject to the penalty of the land expelling its perpetrators are the abominations the Canaanites did not become guilty of. This is why the Torah had to write the words: כי כל, "for all, etc." You may view the whole subject in parable form. You have a number of vessels in front of you, each one containing drinking water. You have become aware that a poisonous snake spit into one of the vessels but you do not know into which one. People will be scared to drink out of any of these vessels fearing it is the one containing the invisible poison. Although only a single sin causes expulsion from the country whereas G'd issued many prohibitions, it is a sad fact that man is inclined to commit such abominations and he is considered in law as someone who is by nature taking the law into his own hands instead of keeping his distance from abominations as a matter of nature. I have enlarged on this phenomenon in my book פרי תואר on Yore Deyah 110 where I explained that everyone who is considered as having a 50-50 chance of sinning is considered as a definite potential sinner. In halachah we call this כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי, that as long as there is at least one definitely forbidden object in front of us even if there are 100 permitted items, as long as we have not identified the forbidden item a person consuming one of these items is not given the benefit of the doubt that the chances that he ate the permitted items are overwhelmingly in his favour; he is considered as having had a 50-50 chance of having eaten the forbidden item. Once G'd had frightened the Israelite into considering that he might be guilty of expulsion if he indulged in forbidden sexual relations and that even the other prohibitions carry the כרת penalty he has every reason to refrain from committing such a sin.

AND THE LAND WAS DEFILED, THEREFORE DID I VISIT THE INIQUITY THEREOF UPON IT, AND THE LAND VOMITED OUT HER INHABITANTS. Scripture was very strict in forbidding these sexual relationships on account of the Land which becomes defiled by them, and which in turn will vomit out the people that do [these abominations]. Now forbidden sexual relationships are matters affecting personal conduct, and do not depend on the Land, [so why should the Land be affected by these personal immoral acts]? But the secret of the matter is in the verse which states, When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the people, etc. For the portion of the Eternal is His people etc.³⁸⁰Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The meaning thereof is as follows: The Glorious Name³⁸¹Ibid., 28:58. created everything and He placed the power of the lower creatures in the higher beings, giving over each and every nation in their lands, after their nations³⁸²Genesis 10:31. some known star or constellation, as is known by means of astrological speculation. It is with reference to this that it is said, which the Eternal thy G-d hath allotted unto all the people,³⁸³Deuteronomy 4:19. for He allotted to all nations constellations in the heavens, and higher above them are the angels of the Supreme One whom He placed as lords over them, as it is written, But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me,³⁸⁴Daniel 10:13. and it is written, lo, the prince of Greece shall come.³⁸⁵Ibid., Verse 20. They are called “kings,” as it is written [there], and I was left over there beside the kings of Persia.³⁸⁴Daniel 10:13. Now the Glorious Name³⁸¹Ibid., 28:58. is G-d of gods, and Lord of lords³⁸⁶Deuteronomy 10:17. over the whole world. But the Land of Israel, which is in the middle of the inhabited earth,³⁸⁷Aware of the fact that the earth is spherical [and not flat, as believed by most people in the Medieval Ages], Jewish sources being mindful of this fact speak of the Land of Israel as being in the middle of the “inhabited” earth, and not just “of the earth,” as there is no middle point in a spherical body. is the inheritance of the Eternal designated to His Name. He has placed none of the angels as chief, observer, or ruler³⁸⁸Proverbs 6:7. over it, since He gave it as a heritage to His people who declare the Unity of His Name, the seed of His beloved ones [i.e., the patriarchs]. It is with reference to this that He said, and ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine,³⁸⁹Exodus 19:5. and it is further written, so shall ye be My people, and I will be your G-d,³⁹⁰Jeremiah 11:4. and you will not be subject to other powers at all. Now He [also] sanctified the people who dwell in His Land with the sanctity of observing the laws against forbidden sexual relationships, and with the abundant commandments, so that they [His people] would be dedicated to His Name. It is for this reason that He said, And ye shall keep all My statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them, that the Land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out,³⁹¹Further, 20:22. and it is further written, But I have said unto you: ‘Ye shall inherit their Land, and I will give it unto you to possess it’ … I am the Eternal your G-d, Who have set you apart from the peoples,³⁹²Ibid., Verse 24. meaning to say, that He has set us apart from all the nations over whom He appointed princes and other celestial powers, by giving us the Land [of Israel] so that He, blessed be He, will be our G-d, and we will be dedicated to His Name. Thus the Land which is the inheritance of the Glorious Name, will vomit out all those who defile it and will not tolerate worshippers of idols, nor those who practise immorality. Now this section mentioned the Molech,³⁹³Above, Verse 21. which is a form of idolatry, together with the forbidden sexual relationships, and with reference to all of them He said, Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all of these the nations are defiled,³⁹⁴Verse 24. and the Land vomited out her inhabitants³⁹⁵In Verse 25 before us. [thus showing that the Land is unable to contain idol worshippers or those who practise immorality]. And so also did He say in the second section [i.e., in Seder Kedoshim], and I have set you apart from the peoples, that ye should be Mine,³⁹⁶Further, 20:26. which is [the basis for] the strict prohibition against idolatry. Therefore He stated that it is because they are dedicated to His Name that He gave them the Land, as it is said, And I have said unto you: ‘Ye shall inherit their Land, and I will give it unto you to possess it’ … I am the Eternal your G-d, Who have set you apart from the peoples.³⁹²Ibid., Verse 24.
Now outside the Land of Israel, although it all belongs to the Glorious Name,³⁸¹Ibid., 28:58. yet its purity is not perfect, because of “the servants” who hold sway there, and the nations go astray after their princes to worship them as well. It is for this reason that Scripture states, the G-d of the whole earth shall He be called,³⁹⁷Isaiah 54:5. since He is the G-d of gods Who rules over all, and He will in the end punish the host of the high heaven on high,³⁹⁸Ibid., 24:21. removing the celestial powers and demolishing the array of “the servants,” and afterwards He will punish the kings of the earth upon the earth.³⁹⁸Ibid., 24:21. This is the meaning of the verse stating, The matter is by the decree of ‘irin’ (the wakeful ones), and ‘sh’elta’ (the sentence) by the word of the holy ones,³⁹⁹Daniel 4:14. meaning, the matter that was decreed on Nebuchadnezzar [that he be driven from men and eat grass as oxen etc.] is the pronouncement of the guarding angels and the sentence of the word of the holy ones, who have ordained on the powers emanating from them that it be so. They [the angels] are called irin [literally: “the wakeful ones”], because from their emanations proceed all the powers that stir all activities, similar to that which it says, and behold ‘ir’ (a wakeful one) and a holy one came down from heaven. He cried aloud, and said thus: ‘Hew down the tree etc.⁴⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 10-11. — [In the verse] And ‘sh’elta’ (the sentence) is by word of the holy ones,³⁹⁹Daniel 4:14. [the word sh’elta] is like sha’alu, meaning first “they ask” what is the will of the Supreme One about it, and afterwards they decree that it be so done. It is with reference to this that Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, it is the decree of the Most High,⁴⁰¹Ibid., Verse 21. for everything is from Him, blessed be He.
Thus the Glorious Name,³⁸¹Ibid., 28:58. blessed be He, is G-d of gods,³⁸⁶Deuteronomy 10:17. in the whole world, and G-d of the Land of Israel which is the inheritance of the Eternal.⁴⁰²I Samuel 26:19. This is the meaning of the expression, and he will go astray after the foreign gods of the Land,⁴⁰³Deuteronomy 31:16. for the gods are foreign to the Land of G-d and His inheritance. This is what Scripture means when it states [of the Cutheans who were settled by the king of Assyria in the cities of the kingdom of Israel], they knew not the manner of the G-d of the Land; therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the G-d of the Land.⁴⁰⁴II Kings 17:26. The verse is thus stating that they did not live in the Land in a way befitting its special characteristic as G-d’s inheritance — hence the phrase “the G-d of the Land.” Now the Cutheans were not punished in their own land when they worshipped their gods, by G-d sending lions among them, but only when they came into the Land of G-d and conducted themselves as before, did He send lions among them who slew them. And so the Rabbis taught in the Sifra:⁴⁰⁵Sifra Kedoshim 11:14. “And the Land vomit not you out also etc.⁴⁰⁶Verse 28. The Land of Israel is unlike other lands; it is unable to contain sinners.” And in the Sifre we find that the Rabbis taught:⁴⁰⁷Sifre Ha’azinu, 315. “And there was no strange god with Him⁴⁰⁸Deuteronomy 32:12. [when He took Israel out of Egypt, and protected them during their wandering through the wilderness], so that none of the princes of the nations should have power to come and exercise authority over you, something like that which it is said, and when I go forth, lo, the prince of Greece shall come, etc.”³⁸⁵Ibid., Verse 20. This is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis:⁴⁰⁹Kethuboth 110 b. “Whoever lives outside the Land, is as if he had no G-d, for it is said, I am the Eternal your G-d, Who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d,⁴¹⁰Further, 25:38. and it is further said, for they have driven me [David] out this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of the Eternal, saying: Go, serve other gods.”⁴¹¹I Samuel 26:19. “And who told David, ‘Go, serve other gods?’ This can only mean to teach you that he who lives outside the Land is like etc.’” (Kethuboth). Having been forced to leave the Land, David was thus justified in saying that those responsible for it had, as it were, said to him, “Go, etc.” And in the Tosephta of Tractate Abodah Zarah the Rabbis have said:⁴¹²Tosephta, Abodah Zarah 5:5. On the name Tosephta, see in Seder Tazria Note 124. “Now it is said, And I [Jacob] will come back to my father’s house in peace, then shall the Eternal be my G-d,⁴¹³Genesis 28:21. and it is further said, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.⁴¹⁰Further, 25:38. When you are in the land of Canaan I am your G-d. When you are not in the land of Canaan, I am not your G-d if it were at all possible to say so [for He is our G-d under all circumstances and in all places]. Similarly it is said, about forty thousand ready armed for war passed on in the presence of the Eternal unto battle,⁴¹⁴Joshua 4:13. and it is further said, and the Land is subdued before the Eternal, and before His people.⁴¹⁵I Chronicles 22:18. But how could it enter one’s mind that Israel subdued the Land before the Eternal [as if to say that they captured it for His sake]? But [this teaches that] as long as they are upon the Land, it is as if it were subdued [before Him, since He is their G-d, as explained above], but when they are not upon it, it is not subdued.”
It is on the basis of this matter that the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:⁴¹⁶Sifre Eikev, 43. “And ye perish quickly from off the good Land.⁴¹⁷Deuteronomy 11:17. The following verse continues: And ye shall lay up these My words in your heart and in your soul etc. This clearly indicates even as the Sifre teaches, that after banishment from the Land they are to continue the observance of the commandments. Although I banish you from the Land to outside the Land, make yourselves distinctive by the commandments, so that when you return they shall not be novelties to you. This can be compared to a master who was angry with his wife, and sent her back to her father’s house and told her, ‘Adorn yourself with precious things, so that when you come back they will not be novelties to you.’ And so did the prophet Jeremiah say [to the people in exile in Babylon], Set thee up waymarks.⁴¹⁸Jeremiah 31:20. These are the commandments, by which Israel is made distinctive.” Now the verses which state, and ye perish quickly … and ye shall lay up these My words etc.⁴¹⁹Deuteronomy 11:17-18. only make obligatory in the exile [the observance of those commandments] affecting personal conduct, such as the [wearing of] phylacteries and [placing of] Mezuzoth⁴²⁰A parchment on which is written Deuteronomy 6:4-9, and 11:13-21, and which is fastened to the right door-post. See further in Vol. II, p. 173. [these being specifically mentioned there in the following words of Scripture], and concerning them the Rabbis [in the above text of the Sifre] explained [that we must observe them] so that they shall not be novelties to us when we return to the Land, for the main [fulfillment] of the commandments is [to be kept] when dwelling in the Land of G-d. Therefore the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:⁴²¹Sifre R’eih, 80. “And ye shall possess it, and dwell therein. And ye shall observe to do all the statutes etc.⁴²²Deuteronomy 11:31-32. Dwelling in the Land of Israel is of equal importance to all the commandments of the Torah.” A similar statement is also found in the Tosephta of Tractate Abodah Zarah.⁴²³Tosephta, Abodah Zarah 5:3. This in fact was the thought of the wicked ones who [misusing the intention of the above statement], said to the prophet Ezekiel [whose prophetic activity was in the Babylonian exile]:⁴²⁴Sanhedrin 105 a. “Our master Ezekiel, if a servant is sold by his master, does the master still have any claim to him?”⁴²⁵In other words, “since G-d sold them to Nebuchadnezzar and banished them from before Him, does He still have any claim upon them?” (Rashi ibid.). The answer was that they were never “sold” since the exile was merely a form of temporary punishment for their sins, and therefore, and that which cometh into your mind etc. (see text). For it is said, and that which cometh into your mind shall not be at all; in that ye say: We will be as the nations, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone.⁴²⁶Ezekiel 20:32. And this was the command of our patriarch Jacob to his household, and to all that were with him, at the time that they came into the Land, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves.⁴²⁷Genesis 35:2. And G-d, by Whom alone actions are weighed,⁴²⁸See I Samuel 2:3. [brought it about] that Rachel died on the way when they started coming into the Land,⁴²⁹Genesis 35:16-19. See in Vol. I, pp. 330-332, where Ramban refers briefly to this problem, namely why Jacob married two sisters in their lifetime, and then concludes that “he married them only outside the Land.” Here Ramban completes the thought, by explaining that G-d, by Whom events are decided, therefore brought about the death of one of the sisters as soon as they came into the Land. The reason why Rachel had to die and not Leah, is explained in the text. for on account of her own merit she did not die outside the Land, and for Jacob’s merit, he could not dwell in the Land with two sisters [in their lifetime, since this is forbidden in the Torah, and the laws of the Torah were observed by our ancestors in the Land of Israel even before the Torah was given on Sinai], and she [Rachel] was the one by whose marriage the prohibition against two sisters took effect [since Jacob was already married to Leah]. It would appear that Rachel became pregnant with Benjamin before they came to Shechem, and while in the Land Jacob did not touch her at all, for the reason that we have mentioned. And the prophet states, And first I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double; because they have profaned My Land; they have filled Mine inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable things and their abominations.⁴³⁰Jeremiah 16:18. This matter [i.e., that the Land of Israel is the inheritance of the Eternal and thus cannot tolerate sinners] is found in many places in the Scriptures, and you will see it clearly after I have opened your eyes to it.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented in the section of Vayeilech:⁴³¹Deuteronomy 31:16. “We know that G-d is One, and changes arise because of those who receive [His beneficent deeds], but G-d does not change His deeds, as they are all done in wisdom. And included in the worship of G-d is to guard the ability to receive [His beneficence] according to the place [so that if a particular place is holier than others, one must observe there more strictly the laws of holiness]. Therefore it is written [of the Cutheans, that they did not know] the manner of the G-d of the Land,⁴³²II Kings 17:26. The Cutheans were thus punished for not being heedful of the holiness of the Land of Israel which is unable to retain worshippers of idols. and of Jacob it is said [when he came into the Land he told his household], put away the strange gods,⁴²⁷Genesis 35:2. and the extreme opposite of [the sanctity of] the place [i.e., the Land of Israel] is indulging in forbidden sexual relationships, as they are [sins of the] flesh. The student versed [in the mysteries of the Torah] will understand.” Thus are the words [of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra] of blessed memory.
Now do not refute me [in what I have written above, that Israel is under the direct guidance of G-d alone, and no celestial power determines their fate], by citing the verse, Michael your prince,⁴³³Daniel 10:21. for he is only a ministering angel who implores mercy for Israel, but is in no way a prince exercising any royalty or power. So was also the captain of the host⁴³⁴Joshua 5:14. who appeared to Joshua at Jericho, showing him that G-d had sent him to fight their battles, similar to [that which happened in the days of] Hezekiah.⁴³⁵II Kings 19:35: And it came to pass at that night, that the angel of the Eternal went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians etc. Besides, this matter [of Michael imploring mercy for Israel] was when we were already outside the Land of Israel.
Now I do not have permission to explain on the subject of ha’aretz (“the earth” or “the Land”) more than this.⁴³⁶Ramban is alluding to the word ha’aretz, which is mentioned here repeatedly: vatitma ha’aretz … vataki ha’aretz (literally: “and the earth was defiled … and the earth vomited out”). This hints at the first ha’aretz, mentioned in the first verse of Creation, which Ramban has already explained in many places as referring to “the higher earth,” to which the souls finally return after their sojourn on the lower earth. But if you will merit to understand the first “earth” mentioned in the verse of Bereshith (In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth), and also the one mentioned in the section of Im Bechukothai,⁴³⁷Further, 26:42. v’ha’aretz ezkor (literally: “and the earth I will remember”). you will know a profound and sublime secret, and you will further understand what our Rabbis have said:⁴³⁸Tanchuma, Vayakheil 7. “The Sanctuary on high is exactly opposite the Sanctuary below.” I have already alluded to this on the verse, for all the earth is Mine.⁴³⁹Exodus 19:5. Now Scripture mentions that the people of the land of Canaan were punished on account of their immoral [sexual] deeds. And our Rabbis have said that they were warned about these matters from the time of creation, when these laws were declared to Adam⁴⁴⁰Sanhedrin 56 b. Rambam in the Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Melachim 9:1, puts it as follows: “The first man was commanded concerning six matters: idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, etc.” and to Noah,⁴⁴¹Incest is counted among the Seven Laws of the Noachides (see Vol. I, p. 417, Note 148). for He does not punish unless He admonishes first. Scripture, however, did not state the admonition, but instead said that the Land would vomit them out, for the Land abhors all these abominations.⁴⁴²Verse 27. Now the Canaanites were not the only ones who were admonished about these matters [for since these laws were declared to Adam and Noah, they applied to all mankind], and the Scriptural section mentions specifically, After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do,⁴⁴³Above, Verse 3. which proves that the Egyptians also did all these abominations, and yet the land of Egypt did not vomit them out, nor did the lands of other nations vomit them out! Rather, this whole subject shows the distinction of the Land [of Israel] and its holiness [so that it alone is unable to retain sinners]. Scripture states, and the Land vomited out [using a past tense, although the Canaanites were still living there], for from the time that He was to punish [them] for the sins committed upon her [i.e. the Land], having decreed destruction upon the Canaanites, it is as if the Land had already vomited them out. Or it may be that the expression, and the Land vomited out is a reference to above, similar to what is said, their defense is removed from over them.⁴⁴⁴Numbers 14:9. See Ramban there.

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

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

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

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

ותקיא, “it spit out, etc.” Once the measure of their sin which G’d was prepared to tolerate if they would repent, had become full, the fact that G’d decreed their destruction is considered by the Torah as if that decree had already been carried out. Alternately, the word ותקיא in the past tense, applies to the parallel phenomenon in the celestial regions. We have a similar statement in Numbers 14,9 when the impression by the majority of the spies that the land consumes its inhabitants was interpreted by Joshua and Calev as evidence that the protection of that nation’s guardian angel, described as צלם, had already abandoned this people so that they would fall into the hands of the Israelites like ripe plums.

ושמרתם אתם את חקותי, not to reveal the nakedness, etc.

ועמדתם אתם, "and you shall observe, etc." The reason the Torah uses the word אתם, "you," after having already addressed the people as "you" by addressing them directly is, that this commandment is intended as a warning that the various statutes and ordinances not be disregarded by all the people who have been commanded to observe them. A person should not say that his only concern is that he personally should not be the cause of the particular commandment being ignored. By saying ושמרתם את חקותי, the Torah imposes upon each one of us the obligation to see to it that others observe these statutes. Seeing that such an obligation devolves only on the people with influence on the people, i.e. Moses and his court, the Torah added the word אתם to make sure that we understood who was being addressed here. It is the function of a Jewish court to ensure that the people observe G'd's commandments. In Torat Kohanim our sages said that the reason that Moses and his court are being charged with that responsibility is that they themselves were already in the habit of observing these commandments. This made them a natural for supervising observance of these laws by the whole nation. We have a similar approach to Song of Songs 4,12: גן נעול אהותי כלה גל נעול מעין חתום. "A garden locked up is my sister, a spring locked up a fountain sealed." Solomon used a well understood hyperbole to describe chaste behaviour by the Jewish people. The message is that the legislation about sexual prohibitions is not something new and strange to the Jewish people but that they had always excelled in chastity as part of their nature. The Torah may have alluded to this by reminding the people with the word אתם, i.e. "something that you are already used to."

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

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

ואת משפטי, by punishing the guilty offenders.

האזרח והגר, "the natural-born Jew as well as the proselyte." Torat Kohanim explains that were it not for the extra letter ה at the beginning of the word אזרח I would have interpreted these laws as applying only to the males. The same is true about the letter ה at the beginning of the word הגר. As it is, the laws also apply to the wives of the natural-born Jews as well as to the wives of the proselytes. Thus far Torat Kohanim. The only reason that the Torah had to write something at all in order to include the women is the word אתם which is clearly masculine.

את חקותי, the laws governing incest and chastity that were the principal subject of this portion.

ולא תעשו מכל התועבות, by observing these rules you will not become guilty of engaging yourselves in any of these abominable practices.

Another reason the Torah even mentions the proselytes is to tell us that if both the Israelites and the proselytes will adhere to these regulations on sexual chastity, then the deviations practiced by the local population will lose the power to make the land spew out its inhabitants. The tendency of the land to do this was limited to the period prior to the Israelites occupying it. In other words, it is entirely up to Israel and the proselytes if the land will or will not spew out its inhabitants.

ואת משפטי, “and My social laws; you will be careful not to violate them.”

You are no doubt aware of Exodus 23,33 in which the Torah warns not to conclude any treaties with the local inhabitants of the land of Canaan as they are apt to persuade you to sin against G'd. Maimonides as well as the author of the Semak remark that a Gentile who fails to observe the seven Noachide laws is not even allowed to dwell in the land of Israel for this very reason. This teaches you that if it had not been for their failure to accept the Noachide laws the land would not have spewed out anybody on their account. [Many of the prohibitions in our chapter do not form part of the Noachide laws. Ed.]

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

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

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

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

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

So is the Land of Israel: It cannot sustain [sinners]. Because the plain reading of the verse implies that the land will not expel Israel even if they defile it; as it expelled the nation that defiled it. But if so, what threat is this to them that they should keep the laws and statutes? Therefore, he brings the parable of the king’s son. I.e., you will be like the king’s son who vomits immediately if he eats something disgusting because he is sensitive. So with you, if you defile the land, it will expel you immediately and you will not last many days on the land, like the nation before you that lasted may days on the land even though they did all these abominations. However, you it will expel immediately if you do these abominations.

ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם, “and the land will not spew you out.” If you do violate My commandments, not only will the land vomit you, but many of the sins you will become guilty of will carry the additional penalty of severing your souls from the Jewish people and their potentially eternal afterlife.

כאשר קאה, “as it had already vomited;”we find here that the same land had already once spewed out its former inhabitants. The word קאה in the masculine mode suddenly, [as compared with תקיא at the beginning of this verse, Ed.] reminds us of a previous time when the Torah used it in the masculine mode in connection with the noun ארץ, which is usually a feminine noun. The other time it was described as performing something in the masculine mode was in Genesis 13,6 when the land of Canaan was described as incapable of supporting both the herds and flocks of Avraham and his nephew Lot, as they had become too numerous. Our author quotes several other examples of this as in: Isaiah 9,18, Zecharyah 14,10, and Genesis 29,6.

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

AND THE SOULS THAT DO THEM SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM AMONG THEIR PEOPLE. “His offspring is cut off, and his [own] days are shortened.” This is Rashi’s language.⁴⁴⁵Above, 17:9. Now in the matters of excision mentioned in the Torah there are three different expressions. One is that which states, that man shall be cut off;⁴⁴⁶Ibid., Verses 4 and 9. This form of expression is found in connection with slaughtering or bringing offerings outside the Sanctuary Court. a second one is that which says, and the souls which do them shall be cut off,⁴⁴⁷In Verse 29 before us, in connection with forbidden sexual relationships. or that soul shall be cut off from before Me;⁴⁴⁸Further, 23:3 in connection with eating of the holy offerings in a state of impurity. It is also found as a punishment for eating forbidden fat (above, 7:25), blood (ibid., 17:10) etc. and a third form of expression is that which states, that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him.⁴⁴⁹Numbers 15:31. In connection with idol worship and blasphemy. Now of a [a person doing work on] the Day of Atonement Scripture states, that soul will I destroy from among his people,⁴⁵⁰Further, 23:30. and on this the Rabbis commented in the Sifra:⁴⁵¹Sifra. Emor 14:4. “Excision is mentioned in many places in Scripture. But I do not know what it is. Now that it says, and I will destroy,⁴⁵⁰Further, 23:30. it teaches that excision means ‘destruction’ [of the soul].”
The explanation of the subject is as follows. If someone eats forbidden fat or blood and he is [still] a righteous person whose merits outweigh [his sins], but he could not control his desire for it, and thus stumbled in this sin, his days will be shortened and he will die in his youth before reaching old age, which is sixty years,⁴⁵²“At sixty a man attains old age” (Aboth 5:24). but his soul is not destined for destruction;⁴⁵³For although in the case of eating forbidden fat or blood Scripture does state that soul shall be cut off (see Note 448 above), yet since the merits of this man outweigh his sins, his soul will not be destroyed. In other words, the punishment of destruction of the soul applies only if his sins outweigh his merits, as a result of his having eaten forbidden fat or blood, as explained further on in the text. rather, its portion will be in the World of Souls⁴⁵⁴See in Vol. II, p. 65, Note 12. in accordance with the person’s good deeds, since he was a righteous man, and he will also have a portion in the World to Come, which is the world after the resurrection. Of this case it is said, that man shall be cut off.⁴⁴⁶Ibid., Verses 4 and 9. This form of expression is found in connection with slaughtering or bringing offerings outside the Sanctuary Court. But [in the case of] one who, as a result of this grave sin, now has more sins [in gravity] than his merits, the punishment of excision for this weighty transgression affects the soul that sins after it is separated from the body, and it is cut off from life in the World of Souls.⁴⁵⁴See in Vol. II, p. 65, Note 12. It is with reference to those liable to this form of excision that Scripture alludes, in saying, that soul shall be cut off from before Me.⁴⁴⁸Further, 23:3 in connection with eating of the holy offerings in a state of impurity. It is also found as a punishment for eating forbidden fat (above, 7:25), blood (ibid., 17:10) etc. And it is further written [in this connection], that soul will I destroy from among his people.⁴⁵⁰Further, 23:30. These sinners do not suffer bodily excision [as is the case in the first type mentioned above], but may sometimes live to reach many days, even old age and hoary heads, as it is written, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his evil-doing.⁴⁵⁵Ecclesiastes 7:15. It is this which our Rabbis have said:⁴⁵⁶Rosh Hashanah 17 a. “But he whose sins outweigh his merits, including a non-Jew⁴⁵⁷“A Jew who sins with his body” is also mentioned there in the Talmud in this connection. But that is defined there as “the head (of him) that puts on no Tefilin (phylactery).” It may be that Ramban omitted mentioning this here, since his essential intention is to explain the types of excision mentioned in Scripture, which fit in with the example mentioned further on in the text, since the punishment for immorality is expressly stated even for the Canaanites. who sins with his body — and Rav Papa said that this refers to a particular sin, that is to say, one who commits incest with one of the forbidden relations — these descend to Gehenna and they are punished for twelve months; after twelve months their bodies are destroyed, and their souls burnt, and the winds scatter [their ashes] under the soles of the feet of the righteous etc.” And there is a still more stringent form of excision, where both the body is cut off [from life in this world] and the soul [even from life in the World to Come]. It is of this [third kind of excision mentioned above] that it is said, Because he hath despised the word of the Eternal, and hath broken His commandment, that soul ‘hikareith tikareith’ (shall be utterly cut off), his iniquity shall be upon him.⁴⁴⁹Numbers 15:31. In connection with idol worship and blasphemy. And the Rabbis interpreted it:⁴⁵⁸Shebuoth 13 a. “‘Hikareith’ (he shall be cut off) in this world; ‘tikareith’ (he shall be cut off) in the World to Come,” meaning to say that he shall die in his youth, and his life shall be as that of the depraved⁴⁵⁹Job 36:14. in that his soul will not share in the life after the resurrection and he will have no portion in the World to Come. This double expression of excision is not stated in the Torah except in matters of idolatry and blasphemy. Our Rabbis have further interpreted in Tractate Shebuoth:⁴⁵⁸Shebuoth 13 a. “Because he hath despised the word of the Eternal.⁴⁴⁹Numbers 15:31. In connection with idol worship and blasphemy. This refers to one who throws off the yoke, [i.e., he denies the essential principle of the religion], and perverts the sense of the Torah. And he hath broken His commandment. This is one who breaks the covenant of the flesh” [i.e., circumcision]. But this does not apply to all cases where excision is mentioned, it being explained there in the Gemara⁴⁵⁸Shebuoth 13 a. that the double expression of ‘hikareith tikareith’ (he shall utterly be cut off)⁴⁴⁹Numbers 15:31. In connection with idol worship and blasphemy. does not apply to all other people who are liable to excision by law of the Torah, except for those derived by interpretation of this verse; since this verse refers to a blasphemer and a worshipper of idols, and the Rabbis added by interpretations, those who deny the essential principle [of G-d’s existence], and those hardened wicked ones [mentioned above]. This is similar to that which is said of them in the tradition,⁴⁶⁰The Hebrew word is kabalah, and it is here used as a term referring to the books of the Scriptures which come after the Five Books of Moses, because they are words of “tradition” received from the prophets. for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.⁴⁶¹Isaiah 66:24. These are the ones who are enumerated in the Mishnah⁴⁶²Sanhedrin 90 a. and in the Beraitha:⁴⁶³Tosephta, Sanhedrin Chapter 13. “And these are they that have no share in the World to Come.” And so also it appears, that not all those liable to excision are punishable by the death of their offspring, except for those where the word aririm (childless) is mentioned.⁴⁶⁴Further, 20:20-21. And it is possible that all forbidden [sexual] relationships have been likened to each other [in this respect of the punishment, namely death of the offspring], but in the case of other sins for which excision is incurred, such as for eating forbidden fat and blood, we do not have [this aspect of punishment].
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented:⁴⁶⁵Ibid., 23:30. “There is a difference between ‘v’ha’avad’ti’ (and I will destroy)⁴⁵⁰Further, 23:30. and ‘v’nichr’thah’ (it shall be cut off),⁴⁴⁸Further, 23:3 in connection with eating of the holy offerings in a state of impurity. It is also found as a punishment for eating forbidden fat (above, 7:25), blood (ibid., 17:10) etc. and I could not explain.” The learned scholar [Rabbi Abraham] thought that the soul that is “destroyed” is destroyed for ever, and the one that is “cut off” is denied life for a time, and yet doth G-d not take away life.⁴⁶⁶II Samuel 14:14.
Know and understand that the forms of excision mentioned with reference to the soul, constitute a great [source for] trust in the existence of souls after death, and the granting of reward in the World of Souls.⁴⁵⁴See in Vol. II, p. 65, Note 12. For in His saying, blessed be He, and that soul shall be cut off from among his people,⁴⁶⁷Numbers 15:30. or that soul shall be cut off from before Me⁴⁴⁸Further, 23:3 in connection with eating of the holy offerings in a state of impurity. It is also found as a punishment for eating forbidden fat (above, 7:25), blood (ibid., 17:10) etc. it denotes that the soul that sinneth⁴⁶⁸Ezekiel 18:20. shall be cut off in its iniquity, but other souls that did not sin, will exist before Him in the splendor on high. It is for this reason that He explains, that soul … its iniquity shall be upon it,⁴⁶⁹Numbers 15:31. for it is the sin that is in it which will cause it to be cut off. And the meaning of the matter is that the soul of man is the lamp of the Eternal,⁴⁷⁰Proverbs 20:27. which has been breathed into our nostrils⁴⁷¹See Genesis 2:7. out of the mouth of the Most High,⁴⁷²Lamentations 3:38. and the spirit of G-d,⁴⁷³Job 33:4. as it is said, And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;⁴⁷¹See Genesis 2:7. and so it remains in its [original] state and does not die [with the death of the body], for it is not a composite [of the four elements] so that it be subject to the law of existence and decomposition, as are all components. But the existence of the soul is fitting [for all time], living forever as do the Separate Intelligences.⁴⁷⁴Another name for “the angels.” See in Vol. II, p. 292, Note 313. Therefore Scripture did not need to state that as a reward for [fulfillment of] the commandments the soul will exist [after the death of the body, for it is self-understood that it will exist from a knowledge of the nature of the soul], but instead it states that as a punishment for sins, the soul will be desecrated and defiled, and become cut off from its proper existence. This is the sense of the expression kareth (cutting off) which the Torah uses, intimating that it is like a branch cut off from the tree, from the roots of which it derives its nourishment. It is this which our Rabbis have said:⁴⁷⁵Sifre Shelach, 112. “From among his people⁴⁵⁰Further, 23:30. — but his people are in peace.” For the cutting off of the soul that sinneth,⁴⁶⁸Ezekiel 18:20. proves the existence of all other souls that do not sin, these being his people [mentioned in the verse] which are in peace. And we have already explained⁴⁷⁶At the beginning of Seder Va’eira. that all assurances of the Torah, whether for reward or punishment, are all miraculous in nature, and are of the type of hidden miracles,⁴⁷⁷See Vol. I, p. 215, Note 372, and pp. 556-557. the Torah always promising [certain blessings] in a non-natural manner [which result not from the processes of nature, but because of the observance of the law], and warning against [consequences which result not from the processes of nature, but as punishment for our violation of the law]. Therefore He warned here of kareth which is of a miraculous nature [since in the natural order of things the soul should exist forever], and did not promise the eternal existence of the soul [as a reward for observance of the commandments], since that is its natural state.
Now there are thirty-six sins⁴⁷⁸Kerithoth 2 a. for which the Torah prescribed excision as a punishment, many of them being in connection with prohibitions of forbidden sexual relationships, that is to say, forbidden sexual intercourse. Similarly, punishments of death imposed by the court for forbidden sexual intercourse, are sixteen.⁴⁷⁹These are listed by Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Sanhedrin 15:10-11. But there is no death penalty at all for eating forbidden foods. The reason why these great punishments, such as death by the court and excision [by Heaven] are [imposed] for forbidden sexual relationships, is because immorality is something very abhorrent to the Torah, as is mentioned in this section and in many places of Scripture. The Sages always mention⁴⁸⁰As in Aboth 5:11, Sanhedrin 74 a, etc. “idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed” [as being the three gravest sins], mentioning immorality after idolatry and before bloodshed [thus showing the greatness of the sin, in that it is mentioned immediately after idolatry]. This is like that which the Rabbis have said:⁴⁸¹Sanhedrin 106 a. “The G-d of these people [i.e., the Israelites] abhors lewdness.” There is also one of the great secrets of creation in this matter.⁴⁸²See above, Verse 6. And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim:⁴⁸³Guide of the Perplexed III, 41. The quotation is not verbatim but expresses the gist of the thought. “Because man’s temptation to sexual intercourse is great, and because of the strong [natural] desire for it, which can cause many stumblings, a great punishment was needed in order to discipline people.” This also is true.
Kedoshim

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

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

Both male and female are implied. See v. 6 above, “You shall not approach.”

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

ושמרתם את משמרתי THEREFORE SHALL YE KEEP (OR, WATCH OVER) MY CHARGE — This is intended to caution the court regarding this (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 22).

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

ושמדתם את משמדתי, "You shall observe My ordinance, etc." Here G'd issues a warning to observe the "security fence" erected by the sages so as to make it unlikely that one breaches one of the Biblical commandments concerning sexual mores. The word משמרת refers to such a "fence." The reason the Torah added the words לבלתי עשות, "not to do, etc," is to explain that the "fence" is designed to protect us from even inadvertently breaching the עריות legislation. Even though a person would not become guilty of the penalties provided for people who willingly violate the prohibitons in this chapter, they would still defile themselves. In order to avoid this, the Torah urges "observe My protective fence."

To warn the Court. Because if to warn Israel about this, it already says (v. 26), “You shall adhere to My statutes etc., and not do any of these abominations.” It seems that Rashi infers this idea because it is written “You shall keep my watch,” which implies to make a safeguard for My watch, and then it is written לבלתי עשות (lit. that it shall not be done), instead of writing לא תעשו (you shall not do). Perforce this is a warning for the Court to make a fence and barrier so that no one, God forbid, ends up committing a sin. (Nalit)

לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות, “not to become guilty of indulging in these abominable acts described previously.” Here the Torah refers to preliminary erotic acts which will eventually lead to violating the basic laws of chastity. They are kissing and hugging the members of the opposite sex, ogling, etc.

ולא תטמאו בהם אני ה' אלהיכם AND IF YE DEFILE NOT YOURSELVES THEREIN, I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — If, however, you do defile yourselves I shall no longer be your God (אלהיכם) since you have cut yourselves off from following after Me. What use then can I have of you? Consequently you deserve annihilation! That is why Scripture states: I am the Lord your God (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 22).

And you are cut off from Me. Rashi is answering the question: At the beginning of the section (verse 2) it is written, “I am Adonoy, your God” [so why repeat it]? Therefore Rashi explains: “I am Adonoy, your God” here means to accept My kingdom and My statutes because it is for this purpose that I took you out [of Egypt]. Therefore, when you defile yourselves and do not keep My decrees you are cut off from Me. If so, what benefit does the world have from you since you do not keep the decrees and statutes of the Holy One, and certainly you do not keep the decrees and statutes of other mortal kings. Therefore you are liable to destruction since there is no need for you, especially when you worship idols.

The Torah concludes the chapter with the words: "I am the Lord your G'd" in order to inform us that we are in danger of jeopardising this superior status even if we violate the commandments in this chapter only inadvertently. The abominations mentioned in this chapter are so serious that commission of any one of them even inadvertently creates a schism between the Israelite and his G'd. It makes it difficult for G'd's presence to remain amongst us. Such a presence can reside only amongst people devoid of abominable acts and concerned with maintaining their sanctity.

אשר נעשו לפניכם, which were performed in this country before you inherited it. You must not argue that since it was the accepted norm in this land for many hundreds of years and the people got away with it, we the Jewish people can also adopt their lifestyle.

אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I, the Lord, Am Your G-d.” You must not argue with Me, even when you do not understand the why’s and wherefore’s of My commandments. (Ibn Ezra)