Comentario sobre Levítico 20:29

וידבר ה, “the Lord spoke;” the reason why this chapter begins with G-d speaking in strong language, i.e. דבר, is because what follows are a series of penalties for people who have deliberately ignored the warnings of the laws enumerated in the previous two chapters.

ואל בני ישראל תאמר AGAIN THOU SHALT SAY TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL the punishments for the transgression of the prohibitions mentioned in the previous chapters.

אשר יתן מזרעו למולך, after the Torah had explained G’d’s plan to sanctify the Israelites in order for them to become as much like Him as is possible for any creature, and He taught them the path to take to achieve such an aim, it now warns of a lifestyle which could produce the opposite result.
The Torah now discusses the penalties that would befall three specific categories of people who defy the Torah and take a different path toward what they perceive to be their success in life on this planet. People guilty of these practices would contaminate their souls beyond redemption.
Category one are people who follow mistaken philosophies, a prime example being people who follow the cult of the Moloch. In verse 3 the Torah spelled out the spiritually negative consequences of following this cult with the words למען טמא את מקדשי, “this would counteract My declared purpose of sanctifying (you)”.
Category two, the relying on such oracles as ov and yidoni have already been described as spiritually contaminating in 19,31 with the words אל תבקשו לטמאה בהם, “do not attempt to become spiritually contaminated by them.” In 18,24-25 the Torah had already drawn attention to the fate which befalls the [previous inhabitants of the land of Canaan being due to their relying on such oracles.
The third category of spiritually counterproductive practices is the ingesting of the kind of food that the Torah outlawed in Leviticus chapter 11 and the negative results of violating these laws are repeated again in verse 25 of our chapter והבדלתם...ולא תשקצו את נפשותיכם לטמא וגו', “separate yourselves…do not become detestable…to spiritually contaminate yourselves.”
In Parshat Emor the Torah speaks of a different kind of spiritual (ritual) contamination which is caused mostly passively through contact directly or indirectly with dead human bodies. It also discusses physical blemishes, especially of priests, which disqualify such people from carrying out their duties in the holy precincts of the Temple. However, the legislation in that portion concentrates on the impediment such kind of ritual (spiritual) contamination represents when the afflicted party handles sacred matters, sacrificial flesh, etc., in any shape or form. Other aspects are the abuse of such sacred objects which as well as incestuous marriages, i.e. contaminating the pure semen a person has been born with by incestuous sexual relations with forbidden partners.
Here the Torah begins with the desecrating of one’s semen by sacrificing it to the abominable Moloch cult. The penalty to be applied to people guilty of this sin, which is perpetrated in public, is עם הארץ ירגמוהו באבן, the people at large are to stone the father to death. Only by the expression of jealousy on behalf of G’d can such a sin be wiped out, seeing it had a potentially spiritually negative effect on the entire nation. Naturally, the penalty by the hand of man is applied only if there was testimony by valid witnesses to the deed and the perpetrator had first been cautioned of the penalty to expect if he would go through with his intention.

ואל בני ישראל תאמר, "Moreover, you shall say to the children of Israel, etc." The reason for the expression "and to the children of Israel" is that all of them are to be involved in executing anyone who hands any of his children to the fire-god Molech. The conjunctive letter ו at the very beginning of the paragraph hints that not only the person who delivers a child to the Molech is guilty of punishment but also those who fail to punish such a person.

The punishments for the prohibitions. Rashi is answering the question that all these negative commandments are already written in parshas Acharei Mos. He answers that above Scripture wrote the prohibitions, and here it is writing the punishment for [violating] the prohibitions.

באבן , “using a stone” The use of the singular for the word “stone” means that unless the first stone has failed to kill the convicted sinner no one else is going to throw any further stones. (Sifra)

מות יומת HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH by sentence of the court; and if the court has not sufficient authority to carry this out, then, ‎ 'וכו‎‎ עם הארץ the people of the land shall assist them (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 4).

The people of the land shall assist them. Because if “the people of the land shall stone him to death” was the explanation of “he shall surely be put to death,” let the verse omit it and not write “he shall surely be put to death.”

עם הארץ THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH — that people for whose sake the earth was created: Israel (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:1); or, that people which is destined to remain in possession of the Land (Canaan) through obedience to these commands (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 4).

For whose sake. Because if not so, why write “of the land”? It should have said, “The people shall stone him, etc.” (Maharam). This [answer, that the land, i.e., the world, was created for their sake] is insufficient because if so, it should have said “people of the world.” And this [second answer] is also insufficient because if so, the verse should have said explicitly that it is talking about Eretz Yisroel. But because it writes [“the land”] in general terms, this implies the whole world. You might ask, why did Rashi not explain this above in parshas Vayikra (4:27) where it is written, “(If a person should unwittingly sin [and he is]) one of the ordinary people (עם הארץ), by transgressing [one of the commandments of Adonoy that should not be done and he incurs guilt]”? The answer is that above the explanation is according to its plain meaning, anyone from the whole nation of Yisroel, whether a kohein, a Levi, or a regular Jew, as Ibn Ezra explains. One cannot explain the same here, because why would one think there is any distinction, and thus [here] it should have said “the nation.” You cannot explain that it means “in the assembly of them all,” because if so it should have said “the entire congregation (כל העדה)” as it says in parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:14) regarding a blasphemer. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

אתן את פני ‎ is taken in the sense of, פנאי שלי, My leisure — I shall turn away from everything else that I am occupied with, and will busy Myself with him alone (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 17:10).

BECAUSE HE HATH GIVEN OF HIS SEED UNTO MOLECH, TO DEFILE MY SANCTUARY — “The congregation of Israel which is sanctified unto Me.” This is Rashi’s language. I have already hinted at this,²⁰⁷Above, 18:21. how on account of one man’s sin the congregation of Israel which is sanctified to His Great Name can become defiled. And the Sages have [also] already hinted at this in their homiletic interpretations when saying:²⁰⁸Berachoth 35 b. “He who enjoys anything of this world without saying a benediction, is considered as if he had robbed the Holy One, blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel, as it is said, Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith: ‘It is no transgression,’ the same is the companion of a destroyer.²⁰⁹Proverbs 28:24. The expression his father refers only to the Holy One, blessed be He, and his mother refers only to the congregation of Israel. The same is the companion of the destroyer, he is a companion of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin, against their Father in heaven.”²¹⁰I Kings 12:28-33; 14:16. For the purpose of Creation was that people should offer their benediction over [its bounties] to the Great Name, assuring thereby the existence of the world, but if that is not done, the Great Name is raised on high and the Divine Presence is removed from Israel, and surely this happens all the more so when a person offers his seed to the Molech, and thereby causes that He abhor the pride of Jacob²¹¹Amos 6:8. and His dwelling place [i.e., the Sanctuary]. This is the meaning of the expression, the people of the Land shall stone him with stones,²¹²Verse 2. for He did not say: “he shall surely be put to death; they shall stone him with stones,” as is mentioned in all such cases,²¹³Further, Verse 27: they shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Also ibid., 24:16. but instead mentions the people of the Land, meaning to say that all the people of the Land — all Israel — are obliged to precede to stone him, for [having given of his seed to Molech] he has harmed everybody, because he has caused that the Divine Presence be removed from Israel. It is for this reason that Onkelos translated [the expression, the people of the Land]: “the people of the house of Israel,” for the term the Land alludes to the whole Land of Israel, not merely the land wherein the worshipper [of the Molech] happens to reside, this being similar [to the expression], for all the earth is Mine.²¹⁴Exodus 19:5. See Ramban there (Vol. II, pp. 273-274). The secret thereof you will also be able to understand from that which Scripture mentions with reference to [the punishment of] excision for worshipping the Molech, I also will set My face against that man,²¹⁵Verse 3 before us. and again, then will I set My face against that man,²¹⁶Verse 5. meaning that My Great and Fearful Name will cut him off. The word “I” He did not mention in the case of excision for practicing the sorcery of the ov or the yide’oni,²¹⁷Further, Verse 27. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 9-11. nor in the case of any other such punishment. I have already stated the reason for all this to all who understand.²¹⁸See above, 18:21.

ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, if he does not refrain from carrying out his evil intention and does not become a בעל תשובה, a repentant sinner. Otherwise, even his judicial execution will not expiate for his sin.

ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, "And also I Myself will set My face against that person, etc." What further punishment does G'd have in mind seeing the guilty party has already been executed by a human tribunal?

ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, “and as for Me, I will give My special attention to that man;” Ibn Ezra writes that this statement presupposes that the sin was committed in the privacy of the sinner’s house or secretly, as otherwise judicial steps have to be taken by the court. Some commentators understand this wording to imply that G’d is going to single out the offspring of that person for extinction.

ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, “and I will set My face against that man.” Nachmanides points out that this is the only time in the entire Torah that the attribute אני for G’d appears in connection with the karet penalty. The reason is that G’d feels that by following this abominable cult the sinner has defiled the great Name and thereby defiled the entire concept of כנסת ישראל, what the Jewish people symbolize.
Our sages in Berachot 35 have compared someone enjoying the fruits of this world without first reciting a benediction giving thanks to G’d for the availability of such fruit as stealing from G’d. They based this on Proverbs 28,24: ”whoever robs his father and mother and says: ‘it is no sin,’ is a companion of a destroyer.” The “father” Solomon speaks of may be understood as our father in heaven. The “mother” Solomon refers to is the כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the Jewish people. We have seen the prophet Isaiah 50,1 use that simile for the Jewish people when he said: “ובפשעכם שלחה אמכם, “on account of your sins your mother was dismissed.” The words “companion to the destroyer” refer to King Jerobam who caused Israel to become corrupted to their father in heaven. If Jerobam who merely blocked the way to Jerusalem is described in such terms how much more so must a father who offers his children (fruit of his loins) as a sacrifice to the Moloch cause estrangement between G’d and His people! Thus far Maimonides. In the course of his remarks Maimonides explained to us that in most instances when the Torah mentions the name of אני it refers to the attribute of Justice, whereas in this instance it represents the attribute of Mercy because it is written in connection with the word פני, “My face.” We find a similar example of the word אני as the attribute of Mercy in Genesis 6,17 as there too it is written in connection with the word לפני in verse 13; a similar construction occurs in Exodus 6,5 where the name אני evidently refers to the attribute of Mercy. It is clear there from the context that the word אני does not refer to the attribute of Justice. [When G’d said there that He had heard the pleas of the Israelites this is equivalent to saying that their pleas had come לפני, “before Me.” Ed.]

“Free time.” Rashi is answering the question that on the contrary, it would be a favor if the Holy One directs his face to him. Also, it is His way to direct His face only onto the righteous. Therefore he explains that it is not connected with the word “face,” [rather it means “free time”].

ואני אתן את פני, “and I will turn My face against that man;” G-d will do this if he cannot be brought to court as there were no witnesses, or if he had not received legal warning of the consequences of committing the sin he had been warned not to commit. (Ibn Ezra)

באיש AGAINST THAT MAN — but not against the whole congregation if they thus sin (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13), for the community as a whole is never punished with excision.

והכרתי אותו, seeing he has already been executed, these words refer to G’d excising this man’s soul’s share in the hereafter.

למען טמא את מקדשי, ”(he had done what he did) in order to defile and desecrate My Sanctuary, etc.” Rashi feels that in this instance the word מקדשי refers to the whole of the Jewish people, seeing they have been declared a holy people, עם קדוש, by G’d Himself. Conduct, such as that of the person who worships the Moloch deity, results in the presence of the Shechinah leaving the Jewish people, thus depriving them of their status of being a holy nation. This is also the reason why in this instance the Torah demands that the death penalty by stoning be administered by the עם הארץ, “the people for whose sake the earth had been created,” whereas in other similar executions the Torah simply writes באבן ירגמו אותו, “they are to stone him,” without appending a specific subject to who those “they” are. Seeing that the man worshipping the Moloch had put at risk every single Israelite’s status in the eyes of the Creator, they all have to demonstrate their disapproval of that sinner by throwing a stone or stones at him.

And not [a congregation]. (Nachalas Yaakov). This is stated in Toras Kohanim. I think it means as follows: If the entire congregation give of their children to Molech, they are not cut off. You cannot say it means that the whole congregation is not cut off because of the sin of the individual, since that is obvious as even his family is not cut off. See more over there.

I believe the Torah informs us that in addition to the physical death of that person by execution there is further punishment in store for his soul. This is alluded to by the words והכרתי אותו מקרב עמו, "I will cut him off from amongst his people." This is a reference to the holy root from which all Jewish souls emanate. The Torah explains the reason for these two punishments and writes: 1) "for he has given of his seed to Molech in order to defile My Sanctuary" 2)…"and to desecrate My holy name." The execution of the sinner's body is the retribution for defiling the Sanctuary, the destruction of the sinner's holy roots is retribution for profaning the Lord's name.

כי מזרעו נתן למלך BECAUSE HE HATH GIVEN OF HIS SEED TO THE MOLECH — These words appear to be redundant since in v. 20 the nature of the sin is already mentioned, but because Scripture states (Deuteronomy 18:10) “[There shall not be found among you] any one that maketh his son or his daughter pass through the fire", one might think that this law applies only to ones children; whence do we know that it applies also to one’s son's son and one's daughter’s son? Because Scripture states here, “because he hath given of his offspring to the Molech". Whence do we know that illegitimate offspring are also included in this law? Because Scripture states again (v. 4) “when he giveth of his seed to the Molech” — whether legitimate or not (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 6-7; Sanhedrin 64b).

למען טמא את מקדשי, by removing My presence from Israel, resulting in the people deserving to be stoned. ולחלל את שם קדשי, therefore I will turn My face against him even though he did not actually engage in idolatry.

From where [do we know this of] illegitimate offspring? Rashi explains in Sanhedrin (64b) that these two verses, “for he gave of his children to Molech” and “when he gives of his children to Molech” are superfluous. Therefore, the rabbis expound that one is to include “his son’s son and his daughter’s son,” and one is to include “illegimate offspring.”

למען טמא את מקדשי TO DEFILE MY מקדש — This means the “Congregation of Israel" which is sanctified to Me. The word מקדש does not imply the Sanctuary only but anything that is holy to God, as in the expression (Leviticus 21:23) “that he profane not my holy things (‎‎‏מקדשי‎).

Which is sanctified to Me. But not the actual Sanctuary, because what has the defiling of the Sanctuary to do with [this] sinner? Re’m writes, “You might ask how can the Community of Israel become defiled by one person who sinned?” It seems to me that because he served idolatry, the Shechinah leaves the land, and by the Shechinah leaving, evil spirits enter the land and automatically, [the Community of] Israel is defiled. The Zohar discusses these matters at length and there is no need to discuss this at length.

‎ואם העלם יעלימו AND IF [THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND] DO ANY WAYS HIDE THEIR EYES [FROM THE MAN] — If they hide their eyes in one thing they will in the end hide their eyes also in many other matters (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 9); if the Small Sanhedrin (a judicial court of twenty-three) hide their eyes, in the end the Great Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court of seventy-one) will also hide their eyes (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 11).

ואם העלם יעלימו עם הארץ, "And if the people at large choose to ignore, etc." The reason the word "they will ignore" is repeated is to tell us that if the people choose to ignore the first time this abominable crime is committed, they will have paved the way for ignoring all subsequent repetitions of this abomination. Even if they would want to punish people then for practicing this cult, the guilty party would challenge the authorities pointing out that the first guilty party had been allowed to get away with this practice. Alternatively, the first word העלם refers to the failure of preventing the father from carrying out his intention to sacrifice his son to the Molech; the second יעלימו refers to the failure of the people to bring such a father to justice.

ובמשפחתו [THEN I WILL SET MY EYES AGAINST THAT MAN], AND AGAINST HIS FAMILY — R. Simeon asked, "But how did his family sin that it should be punished?" But the family is mentioned to teach you that you may take it as a rule that there is no family in which there is one tax-collector (a calling held in great reprobation by Jews) which may not be regarded as consisting entirely of tax-collectors, for they all try to protect him (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 13; Shevuot 39a).

TO GO ASTRAY AFTER THE MOLECH. “This is intended to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way [i.e., by a person passing his children through the fire], even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way.” This is Rashi’s language. Now Rashi has already written in the section of Acharei Moth²¹⁹Ibid. that the Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and this was the way in which it was worshipped: he would hand over his child to the priests etc.” But all this does not conform and agree properly with the Gemara’s conclusion²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. as it appears after deliberation. For according to the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [and not a name for a form of witchcraft], the worship thereof was not by passing children through the fire, for if so there was no need at all for Scripture to mention this, [i.e., the passing through fire] since it would be included in the admonition against worshipping the idols [in the manner in which they are usually worshipped], of which there are many general prohibitions in the Torah, and it is also included in the punishment stated in the section If there be found in the midst of thee … man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the Eternal thy G-d, in transgressing His covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them.²²¹Deuteronomy 17:2-3. Rather, we must perforce interpret [if Molech is the name of a particular idol] that the essential purpose of Scripture in mentioning [this particular form of worship], was only to make one liable for passing one’s children [through fire] even if that particular idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. And thus the Rabbis have said in the Gemara:²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. “And according to the Sage who is of the opinion that Molech is an idol, why did Scripture state [the punishment of] excision in the case of Molech [when it is already included in the general punishment for all idol-worship]? It is to apply it in the case of one who passes his son [through the fire in honor of any idol, even if that idol is] not ordinarily worshipped in that manner.” And the same reasoning applies to the punishment and the admonition which Scripture mentioned with reference to it [this particular form of worship], that they were only necessary [if we hold that Molech is an idol] for the case of one who passed his son [through fire] to an idol which is not normally worshipped in that manner.
It would appear that according to this opinion [that the Molech was idol-worship, and that the main reason why Scripture mentioned this particular form of worship was to prohibit and punish the practice thereof even as an abnormal manner of worship of all other idols], that the term “Molech” is not a name for a particular graven image or statute, but is a general name for anything that is worshipped, “anything which you accept as your king and take upon you as your god.” In accordance with this opinion, the children of Ammon called their abhorrence Molech,²²²I Kings 11:7. The word “abhorrence” is the term of the Rabbis for idols, which we are to abhor. See Deuteronomy 7:26. because he was their king, the term Molech thus being a general name for all things honored [as deities], for it is derived from the term malchuth (royalty). It is thus not like the Rabbi [Rashi] said [in the preceding section of Acharei Moth], that Molech is “an idol the name of which is ‘Molech,’ and the manner of its worship” was as mentioned. Similarly, that which Rashi wrote here that the phrase to go astray after the Molech “is necessary to include any other idol that was worshipped in that way, even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped in that way” — this interpretation too, is impossible [to accept] for the reason that we have mentioned, namely, that the essential basis for the punishment of excision mentioned specifically in the case of the Molech, is to make one liable for practicing before an idol even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, and this includes all idols! [Hence it is not necessary to include them on the basis of the phrase before us in Verse 5 — to go astray after the Molech — when this point is already established the overall statement of excision mentioned in Verse 3 which essentially prohibits that kind of worship to any idol, even if it is not normally worshipped in that way]! It is also impossible to say that Scripture made one liable to excision in the case of that idol the name of which is “Molech,” although passing a child through the fire before it was not its usual mode of worship, and that then it reverts [in the verse before us, stating to go astray after Molech, in order, as Rashi said] to include in the punishment of excision he [who passes through the fire of his seed] to Peor or Merkulis [which was also an abnormal mode of worshipping them]. For why was it necessary for Scripture to mention it [i.e., Molech] altogether? Why was that idol [called “Molech” or “Peor” or “Merkulis”] different from all other idols [since the Torah has already prohibited passing one’s children through fire before any idol, under punishment of excision even if that particular idol is ordinarily not worshipped that way]? Moreover, if so you would need a special verse to include one who passes his child through the fire to Peor or Merkulis in the punishment of stoning [if there were witnesses to his act and he was given the proper warning], just as Scripture [according to Rashi] included him in the punishment of excision [when there were no witnesses]!
Rather, [we must conclude] that Scripture only mentioned the admonition, and the punishments of excision and stoning, in the case of Molech, with reference to one who passes his child through the fire to any idol whatsoever, even if that is not its usual mode of worship. Thus whether you say that the term Molech is a name for all idols [since the name is derived from the word malchuth, (royalty)] as we have explained, or whether you say [as Rashi does] that Molech is the name of a particular idol that was so called, [we must say, as explained above] that Scripture mentioned it [in order to prohibit this practice even] if it be an abnormal mode of worship [of that idol, i.e., Molech]; the same law applying to all idols, for this stringency is on account of the frightfulness of this mode of worship. All this is made clear in the Gemara of Tractate Sanhedrin²²⁰Sanhedrin 64 a-b. according to this opinion which the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, that the Molech was an idol. But our Mishnah [which mentions first “the idolator” and then “he that offers of his seed to Molech,” thus indicating that Molech is not an idol, for otherwise this would have been included under the law of “the idolator”],²²³This point is clearly made in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 64 a, in commenting on the Mishnah. is taught in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says that Molech was not an idol, meaning to say, it was not worshipped in a manner of being accepted as a god, but instead it was like a practice of witchcraft, to seek on behalf of the living unto the dead,²²⁴Isaiah 8:19. unto this dead dog.²²⁵II Samuel 16:9. According to this opinion, one who passed his seed through the fire to Peor or Merkulis, is not liable [since that form of witchcraft was performed only before Molech, and the Torah specifically mentioned that this practice of witchcraft was done before Molech].²²⁶If Molech is held to have been an idol, then, as explained in Ramban above, there was no need for the Torah to prohibit and punish its practice specifically, since it was included in the many general prohibitions against idolatry. We were therefore forced to say that the reason why the Torah specifically mentioned Molech and its practice, was to prohibit that practice to any idol, even if that particular idol was not normally worshipped in that way. Also, the term “Molech” must be an expression not for a particular idol, but for any idol, the word being of the root malchuth (royalty), as the act of idol worship meant that the idolator accepted the idol as his god. But if Molech is held to have been a form of witchcraft [and not a mode of idol worship], then if one is to perform that practice before Peor or Merkulis, it would not come under that specific prohibition which the Torah singled out, and hence he would be free from the punishment of death, although — needless to state — he has committed a heinous sin. Rashi’s words in his commentaries to Tractate Sanhedrin²²⁷Rashi, Sanhedrin 64 a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 129, where this text of Rashi is quoted. are also as we have written. And the Beraitha taught in the Torath Kohanim²²⁸Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 10:15. [which was the source for Rashi’s comment mentioned at the beginning of this verse]: “And I will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, to go astray after Molech. This is intended to include the case of any other idol [which was worshipped in that way, that the worshipper is liable to the punishment of] excision” — the interpretation of this Beraitha is not based upon the redundant expression to go astray after Molech, as appears from the words of the Rabbi [Rashi]. Rather, the Beraitha is stating that this whole [Scriptural passage laying down the law of] excision is redundant, and therefore we are to apply it to any other idol that was worshipped in that way. It is this which the Rabbis have stated in the Gemara:²²⁹Sanhedrin 64 b. “Why is excision mentioned thrice [as the punishment] for idolatry?²³⁰Verses 3 and 5 here; Numbers 15:31. It is prescribed once for [worshipping an idol in] the customary manner; once for worshipping it in a non-customary manner,” that is, if he sacrifices, or burns incense, or pours a libation, or bows down before an idol,²³¹See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 4-6, that these four modes of worship are forbidden to be done before any idol, even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner. which have been included under the punishment of death²³²Exodus 22:19: He that sacrificeth unto the gods shall be utterly destroyed. And see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 6. even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, and here [in the verse before us] they are made liable to excision [in the absence of witnesses]. “And once excision is mentioned for [the worship of] Molech” [for Molech is not an idol, but a form of witchcraft which the Torah prohibited by means of this strong form of punishment]. And according to the Sage who says that Molech is an idol [we must perforce say that the reason why the Torah singled out the Molech is in order to prohibit and punish] passing a child through the fire before any idol whatever, even if the idol is not ordinarily worshipped in that manner, as we have mentioned.

ובמשפחתו, seeing that the people at large ignored his evil deed due to the sinner’s family covering up for him in the first place, thereby strengthening the hand of the perpetrator.

ושמתי אני את פני, "then also l will set My face, etc." The plain meaning of the text appears to be that if the people will not exact retribution then G'd will turn His wrath also against the whole family of that father. If the people had carried out the prescribed judgment, G'd on His part would have punished only the guilty individual. This seems a most unusual aspect of G'd's justice! If members of the family shared in the father's guilt why would G'd not punish them regardless of whether the father has been executed?

לזנות אחר המולך, “to stray after the Moloch.” When Rashi, following Torat Kohanim, writes that these words include anyone straying after other types of idolatry whose form of worship is of a similar nature or even of a different nature, he means that the reason why the Torah singled out this particular cult for expressing its extreme abhorrence, is that this form of idolatry is especially abhorrent. When such a cult is worshipped even in a manner not typifying the norms of worship for that particular idolatry, it still carries the death penalty of karet. Nachmanides writes that this is not so, seeing that according to the Talmud Sanhedrin 64 the penalty applicable to that cult is only for those who “crowns” that deity, looking up to it as a “king” [as implied by the word Moloch. Ed.]

For all of them protect him. I.e., they all try to justify his actions since they are his relatives; therefore they are all [considered] robbers. (Nachalas Yaakov) This seems to refer to above [where it says], “If the people of the land will hide, etc.” This is probably because they are afraid of him and his family who protect him. Therefore [the verse writes] “and his family.”

והכרתי אתו AND I WILL CUT HIM OFF — Why is this stated (it appears to be a mere repetition of the statement in v. 3)? Because since Scripture says here for the reason stated above, “[I will set My face…] against his family", I might think that the whole family is also doomed to excision; Scripture therefore states “[I will cut] him [off]"— he alone is subject to excision, but the whole family is not subject to excision but to bodily sufferings (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 14; Shevuot 39a).

[This phrase] includes worship of any other idol. Since it is already written, “I shall cut him off... from among their people,” why does it again write “and cut him off”? It must have been written again in order to write “along with all those who go astray after him, etc.,” meaning, to stray after the Molech, to do like its [service] for other idols. [This teaches] that even though this is not its usual way [of worship], if one worshipped the idol in this way his punishment is kareis. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

We feel that the meaning of the verse is to tell us that whenever the judges appointed by G'd on earth fail to mete out justice, justice will be meted out in the celestial spheres. G'd announces this by saying: "I will set My face, etc." Once the heavenly tribunal opens the file of the accused, the files of his family members will be scrutinised at the same time. This is what the Torah meant by mentioning ובמשפחתו, "and against his family." The Torah explained in our verse that G'd's setting His face against the sinner would result in his being being cut off, plus all others who had gone astray by making common cause with the father. The files of the family members will be examined each on his own merit. Any family member who will not be found guilty of the Molech cult whether in deed or thought will not be wiped out. The Torah uses the words הזונים אחריו לזנות, "who go astray after him in order to go astray" (the Molech cult) in the present tense to tell us that even if they had not yet been guilty in deed they are considered as guilty as if they already had performed the abominable act. Ezekiel 14,5 expressed this thought more directly when he wrote למען תפש את בית ישראל בלבם, "in order to catch the house of Israel while (the sin) is still in their hearts." [We find independent confirmation of this in Chulin 142. Ed.]

לזנות אחרי המלך TO COMMIT WHOREDOM WITH MOLECH — This is intended to include the worship also of any other idol which he worshipped in this way (by letting his children pass through the fire in honor of it) even though this is not the manner of worship peculiar to it (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 4 15; Sanhedrin 64a).

As a result of what we said we may intepret our verse as assuring us that if the people at large bring the guilty party to justice he alone will be punished and his family will not even be examined by the heavenly tribunal at that time. Should the people fail to get involved, G'd will involve the family of the sinner to the extent that they harbour thoughts similar to those of the father. If so, the family members will be punished by G'd for their ideology though they cannot, of course, be brought to trial on earth. This is the meaning of Devarim Rabbah 5,4 that "in a place where there is judgment there is no judgment, whereas in a place where there is no judgment there is judgment." The difficulty with this saying is that it is obvious that when judgment is carried out in our world that there is no need to carry out judgment in the celestial spheres. Why would the Midrash have to tell us something so obvious? When you follow our approach, however, the Midrash makes sense as the judgment in the celestial spheres referred to is that of the family of the guilty party. You will find that our sages said in Rosh Hashanah 16 that whenever the Book of judgment of a person is opened in the celestial spheres that person's life is in danger and he needs a special merit in order to emerge unscathed.

והתקדשתם SANCTIFY YOURSELVES — This implies keeping aloof from all idolatry (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 2).

והתקדשתם, by staying clear of all incestuous relationships.

והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, "and sanctify yourselves so that you will be holy." G'd directs that we should strive to be holy; when people do this they are assured of attaining the spiritual level of angels who are called קדושים, "holy beings." We know this from Daniel 8,13 "ויאמר אחד קדוש," "one holy one said, etc." This is what is meant by והייתם קדושים. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 20, comment on Numbers 23,23 כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל אל. "at a time when Jacob as well as Israel is told at once what G'd had worked." They describe an outer circle of angels and an inner circle of Israelites. The angels who are standing in the outer circle are forced to ask the Israelites (who are closer to the centre) what G'd has been doing. This teaches that when the Bible speaks of "His holy ones" in a context of angels, the reference is to the Jewish people. In verse 8 the Torah specifies the means by which the Israelites are to sanctify themselves by saying: ושמרתם את חוקותי ועשיתם אותם. The word ושמרתם refers to observance of negative commandments, whereas the word ועשיתם refers to the performance of positive commandments. Between them the commandments are the means by which G'd will sanctify us. The Torah associates G'd's four lettered name י־ה־ו־ה with the performance of the commandments. The Tikkuney Ha-Zohar chapter 70 explain how by the performance of each commandment the respective organ with which that commandment is performed merits that G'd's name comes to rest on it, a concept alluded to in the letters of the word מצוה.

This [refers to] separation from idolatry. Even though [Rashi] said above (Vayikra 19:2), “Wherever you find a fence against sexual crime, you find holiness,” which implies that the term “sanctity” only applies to sexual matters, the answer is that idolatry is also called a harlot (זונה) as it says here “To go astray (לזנות) after Molech.”

והייתם קדושים, so that your seed will merit that the Divine Presence will dwell among the likes of him. Our sages are on record that “the Divine presence will rest only on those Jewish families that are genealogically pure.” (Kidushin 70)

כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, the One Who said to Avraham “to be your G’d and that of your seed after you.” (Genesis 17,7) What was meant by the word לזרעך was the seed which is genealogically yours in an uncontaminated state. (as explained by Bamidbar Rabbah 12,4)

ושמרתם את חקותי ועשיתם אותם, the only way you can ensure that this degree of your sanctity continues throughout the generations is by ensuring your meticulous observance of the עריות legislation. If you were to fail to do this, your children, or some of them being born from a sinful, spiritually contaminated union, would already have these strikes against them from birth, making it so much harder for them to attain their G’d-set goal to achieve the level of sanctity expected of them. Compare David’s reference to the subject in Psalms 51,7 where he considers the fact that one’s mother may have not have had the purest thoughts when cohabiting with her husband as already resulting in her child being born in sin, בעון חוללתי.

ושמרתם את חקתי, “you are to observe My statutes;” this is a repetition, as previously the subjects covered had only been incest and the mixing of species in order to create new strains, etc. Now the statutes mentioned were types of idolatry.

אני ה' מקדשכם, by forbidding you incestuous relationships I G’d have actively helped you in your attaining this sanctity, holiness.

אביו ואמו קלל HE HATH CURSED HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER — These apparently redundant words are intended to include as subject to the death penalty one who curses his parents after their death (Sanhedrin 85b).

FOR WHATSOEVER MAN THERE BE THAT CURSETH HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER. The meaning thereof is that it refers back to the beginning of the section where He stated, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father,²³³Above, 19:3. and He now states here, for whatsoever man there be that does not obey [this commandment] and curseth his father, or his mother, he shall surely be put to death, and by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], this verse is here stated because He had said [above], Sanctify yourselves therefore, and by ye holy; for I am the Eternal your G-d,²³⁴Verse 7. and I am the Eternal Who sanctify you,²³⁵Verse 8. meaning that it is the Glorious Name²³⁶Deuteronomy 28:58. Who sanctifies us, for He is our Father, and our Redeemer from everlasting,²³⁷Isaiah 63:16. and it is His Name; therefore he who curses those who participated in his formation, is liable to death. This is the reason for the law [of the punishment] of the adulterer and adulteress, [in the following verse], which He placed near here before [the law of] all forbidden relations [mentioned further on in this section].²³⁸Ramban’s meaning, as clearly indicated by his commentary (see following note) is that as a result of committing adultery the children of the union may come to transgress the laws relating to parental honor, as they will not know who their fathers are. It is for this reason that the law of the adulterer and adulteress is identical to that of one who curses his parents [who is liable to death by the hand of the court], as the one leads to the other, and therefore too, it is mentioned in juxtaposition to that law. I have already alluded to this above.²³⁹Exodus 20:13 (Vol. II, p. 320).
Now Scripture mentions here some of the forbidden relations in order to make [one who has intercourse with them] liable to death, these being a man’s wife,²⁴⁰Verse 10. a father’s wife,²⁴¹Verse 11. a daughter-in-law,²⁴²Verse 12. a male,²⁴³Verse 13. a woman and her mother,²⁴⁴Verse 14. and the same law applies to a woman and her daughter and her daughter’s daughter, for He mentioned here only some of the relations of a wife, but the same punishment applies to all those mentioned there²⁴⁵Above, 18:17. in the admonition. And surely this applies all the more so to one’s own relatives, such as his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter mentioned there,²⁴⁶Ibid., Verse 10. and needless to say, his [own] daughter. On all these matters there are also Rabbinical interpretations to establish their punishment. Similarly He mentioned here the punishment of death for lying with a beast.²⁴⁷Verse 15. He mentioned excision again in the case of a menstruant²⁴⁸Verse 18. [although this has already been included in a general statement above, 18:29], in order to declare him liable for mere sexual contact without completion of the act, this being the sense of the expression, he hath bared her fountain.²⁴⁸Verse 18. Similarly [He has stated] in the case of a mother’s sister and a father’s sister, for he hath bared his near kin.²⁴⁹Verse 19. He mentioned an uncle’s wife²⁵⁰Verse 20. and also a brother’s wife,²⁵¹Verse 21. in order to declare them liable to [the punishment of] dying childless, whether he had no children at the time when he commits the sin, or he did have [in which case none will survive him]. But the excision mentioned in the case of one’s sister²⁵²Verse 17. is redundant [being included in the general statement above, 18:29], and has therefore been interpreted by our Rabbis:²⁵³Makkoth 13 b. “Why was excision specified in the case of a sister etc.” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture [excision was specified in the case of a sister] in order that Scripture should add [that it will be done] in the sight of the children of their people,²⁵²Verse 17. meaning to state that their soul will perish in youth²⁵⁴Job 36:14. in such a way that people will see, understand and realize that the hand of the Eternal hath done this,²⁵⁵Isaiah 41:20. and that the Holy One of Israel has decreed it.
The meaning of the expression he shall bear his iniquity,²⁵²Verse 17. is that this sin will cleave to him from that time onwards, his deeds will not prosper, and the curse shall lie upon him,²⁵⁶See Deuteronomy 29:19. for G-d will strike him with sore sicknesses until He will destroy him with excision, something similar to what the Rabbis have said:²⁵⁷Shabbath 37 a. “A sign of [this type of] sin is one affected with dropsy.” It was not necessary for Scripture to mention the other people who are liable to excision, such as one’s mother²⁵⁸Above, 18:7. and a wife’s sister,²⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 18. because all that is needed to be stated about them we have already derived from those mentioned [here in this section].

כי איש איש אשר יקלל, proof that I, G’d, am so insistent that your sanctity be manifest by your seed being genealogically pure is that the penalty for non observance is the execution of the person who curses his parents. The normal scenario which leads to a son or daughter cursing their parents has to do with legitimacy or otherwise of their offspring. When a son or daughter are the product of unions forbidden under the laws of incest, children of such unions have little reason to practice the commandment to honour their parents as it was from their parents that they learned to ignore Torah legislation. Solomon’s well known instruction שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך, “heed the moral instruction of your father, and do not ignore the teachings of your mother” (Proverbs 1,8) are most difficult to honour when they know they have seen the light of day only because their parents chose to ignore this very instruction.

כי איש איש אשר יקלל, "for any man whatsoever who curses, etc." Why did the Torah commence this verse with the word כי, a word which indicates that the reason for something is to be found in what had been discussed previously? How is the fact that someone might curse his father or his mother related to what the Torah described in the previous verses? Moreover, why did the Torah have to repeat the word איש? Torat Kohanim claims that if the Torah had written the word איש only once I would have assumed that the prohibition applies only to males and not to females. As a result the Torah was forced to repeat the word איש איש to include everybody in this prohibition. This is most perplexing. Why would anyone have doubted that this commandment applies also to females? We have learned repeatedly that negative commandments apply equally to males and females and that the penalties are the same for both males and females (compare Baba Kama 15). If the Torah did not feel comfortable with the choice of the word איש, it could simply have written the word אדם and I would have known that both males and females were being addressed. Furthermore, why did the Torah repeat the words: "for he has cursed his father or his mother?"

דמיו בו, his blood is on his own head. He made himself guilty of the death penalty.

כי איש אשר יקלל את אביו, “for any man who curses his father, etc.” According to Nachmanides this line is a continuation from the commandment in 19,2 to revere one’s parents. There the commandment had been expressed as a positive commandment, whereas here it is reinforced as a negative commandment, telling us what is in store for people who not only ignore 19,2, but who engage in doing the opposite. Alternately, the Torah draws our attention to the harshness of the penalty by reminding us that G’d commanded us to sanctify ourselves. Anyone who curses G’d’s “partners,” i.e. our parents who helped bring us into this world, has thereby frustrated the Creator’s design and deserves a suitable punishment. This, after all, is also the penalty for marital infidelity, etc.; the underlying concept is similar in all such cases. Abstention from incestuous and promiscuous behaviour furthers G’d’s plan to sanctify our world, whereas violating His laws concerning chastity does the opposite. The positioning of our verse here immediately after the imperative to become holy is quite natural then. Some commentators understand this sequence in a somewhat narrower frame, i.e. verses 9 and 10 respectively as being justified by the simple fact that the mamzer, bastard, product of incestuous relationship does not recognize his father and mother as such, and therefore is liable to curse them. The Torah now lists some of the laws of incest already detailed in chapter 18, in order to spell out the penalties for them, especially those that constitute a capital sin. These include sleeping with one’s father wife, any woman married to another man, one’s daughter-in-law, and indulging in homo-sexual relations, sleeping with a woman and her daughter, including her granddaughter. This was not spelled out, as only some of the woman’s relatives have been spelled out. Clearly, if sleeping with one’s granddaughter is a capital offence so is sleeping with one’s daughter. Naturally one’s own relatives are also included in the list of incestuous relationships subject to the death penalty. One’s aunt and the wife of one’s brother are singled out to remind us that this is forbidden on pain of death even if it is clear that no issue could result from their unions, i.e. that they would die childless, (verse 20). Some more relatives need not be listed specifically as culpability for illicit relations with them has already become clear when more distantly related relatives have been for bidden on pain of death either by tribunal or at the hands of G’d. The reason why, when mentioning the penalty of karet, the Torah adds the enigmatic words לעיני בני עמה, “in the sight of members of her people,” (verse 17) is because this is the Torah’s way of saying that the guilty party will die in her youth, thus enabling the survivors to reflect on the cause of her early death, and for this to act as a deterrent. The meaning of the words עונם ישאו, commonly translated as: “they will have to carry the burden of their sin,” is that the sin will stick to both of the guilty parties like glue from that moment on, and will result in their various endeavours and enterprises in life all failing to be successful. The reason why the Torah repeats the prohibition of a man to sleep with his own wife when the latter is in a state of niddah, menstrual bleeding, is to inform us that the karet penalty applies on such union even if the coitus has not been completed.

To include [cursing them] after death. You should not compare it to hitting one’s father where one is liable only when he is alive. Because if not so, the Torah already said “Any man that curses his father or his mother,” therefore it must be coming here to include after death.

כי איש אשר יקלל את אביו, “for the man who curses his father, etc.” this refers to the warning issued previously. The Torah is saying that if I had warned you not to curse father or mother or belittle them, how much more so does this warning apply to Me, Who have been a partner in creating your father and mother.

דמיו בו HIS BLOOD IS UPON HIM — This implies execution by stoning; similarly wherever the expressions דמיו בו or דמיהם בם occur. We learn this Halachic rule from the case of אוב and ידעוני of whom Scripture expressly states, (v. 27) [“they shall surely be put to death], they shall overwhelm them with stones, their blood is upon them (דמיהם בם)” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 7; cf. Sanhedrin 54a; Keritot 5a). But according to the literal sense of the passage it means the same as the expression דמו בראשו (Joshua 2:19): “[whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street his blood shall be upon his own head] (דמו בראשו)” where the meaning is: No one deserves punishment on account of his death except himself, for he brought it upon himself that he should be killed (i. e. it was his own fault).

I believe that the key to all this is in the previous commandment concerning someone who subjected a son or daughter to the cult of the fire-god Molech. In that instance the Torah was careful to make the culprit culpable only if he sacrificed "some of his own seed." Nothing was said about someone inducting someone else's offspring to the cult of that fire-god. According to that verse if someone sacrificed his brother, sister, or other relative to the fire-god he would not be punishable. In fact we have the following Baraitha in Sanhedrin 64 which states: "he is not guilty (of punishment) unless he committed this abomination with a direct descendant of his." Thus far the Baraitha. We have to explain why there should be a penalty for inducting one's offspring whereas doing the same thing with one's other relatives is not punishable. The reason may be that one's children are considered as if they were part of a person's assets. This is why there is a direct relationship between someone who sacrifices his possessions to an idol such as passing his child through the fires of the Molech cult. When one does a similar thing with people who are not considered as his possessions the idol to whom one presents such a sacrifice remains unimpressed When the idol remains unimpressed so does G'd; seeing one did not"sacrifice" his dearly beloved possessions to an alien deity. We know from Baba Metzia 7 that even when one sanctifies one's property for G'd one cannot do so unless one owns what one has sanctified. In view of all this a person may say that a father does not own his child outright seeing that the mother is an equal party. The Talmud in Niddah 31 tells us that father and mother are partners in the child they produce, the father having contributed the white (bloodcells) whereas the mother contributed the red (bloodcells). Seeing that this is so the father cannot be held totally responsible for the actions of his son because the son represents the mother's input also. After telling us of the punishment for a father who uses his son or daughter as an offering to the fire-god Molech, the Torah continues with איש איש אשר יקלל, saying מות יומת, such a son or daughter shall be executed. The Torah is careful to speak about cursing את אביו ואת אמו, i.e. either the father by himself or the mother by herself. Torat Kohanim explains that it suffices to curse either father or mother to incur the penalty prescribed. In other words, we do not apply the principle that seeing son and daughter are both composites of the input of both father and mother, that the mother's part (of the sinner) cannot be executed on account of a sin committed by the father's part of the sinner. The reason the son has to die is because he insulted either the father's or the mother's honour.

את אביו, “his father,” but not his grandfather.

דמיו בו, ”his blood is upon himself.” The meaning of this expression is similar to דמו בראשו, “his blood is on his own head.” The same applies to someone who lies in an adulterous manner with someone else’s wife. He is no less guilty than someone who has cursed father or mother.

The Torah repeats אביו ואמו קלל, "he cursed his father or his mother," to tell us that anyone cursing father or mother automatically also cursed his other parent. This is so because each individual contains elements of both his father and his mother. This is a practical consequence of the statement of our sages in Berachot 24 אשתו כגופו, that one's wife is considered part of one's body.

את אמו,, “his mother,” but not his grandmother.

Accordingly, it does not matter whether the sin is committed by either son or daughter or is committed against either one's son or one's daughter, the act is totally culpable, i.e. it is considered as if it had been committed by both the female and the male part of the human being who executed it. The words איש איש remind us of the fact that every individual is a composite of male and female input but that the Torah does not separate between them once they are part of one body. We are taught in Niddah 31 "when a woman experiences orgasm first she will give birth to a male child." This means that the female input determines the sex of the male child and that the male input determines the sex of the female child. As a result of this statement the Torah differentiates in the ritual impurity legislation applying to the mother depending on whether she gave birth to a male child or to a female child. This also demonstrates that the two partners who respectively beget or give birth to the child are not equal in all respects. This fact gave rise to the thought that fathers should not be executed when they use a son for the Molech cult, nor mothers when they use a daughter for that cult seeing a person is considered the product of his father or mother respectively rather than an independent entity. The Torah therefore had to repeat איש איש to ensure that we appreciate that the individual committing the sin is evaluated as an entity by itself, is not part of either mother or father when it comes to his culpability. Either a father or a mother using either son or daughter for the abomination described in our paragraph is fully liable for his or her respective sin.

אביו ואמו קלל, “he had cursed his father;” the reason this has been repeated (apparently) is because the Torah wants you to know that seeing the son is the product of both father and mother, i.e. of two strains of blood, he is treated even if he only cursed one of them as if he had cursed both of them. This is reflected in the plural mode of the words דמיו בו, “he is guilty of having cursed their blood,” at the end of our verse.

Yalkut Shimoni item 619 on our verse interprets the word אביו, "his father," as excluding the grandfather from the death penalty if he uses his grandson as an offering for the Molech cult, and the word אמו as excluding the grandmother from that penalty if she does likewise. The Torah was very conscious that careless wording would lead to faulty conclusions on the part of the sages. Therefore the Torah wrote איש איש in the legislation about cursing father or mother so no one should interpret that the culpability extends only to אביו, "his father," and not to אביה, "her father," i.e. that if a daughter cursed her father she would not be culpable for her deed.

ואיש AND THE MAN [THAT COMMITTETH ADULERY SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — a man, thus excluding a minor (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8).

את אשת רעהו, excluding if he slept with a “wife” who was a gentile. The adulterer would then not face the death penalty.

ואיש אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו, “and the man who engages in an adulterous relationship with the wife of his fellow, etc.” our sages see in the word איש an exclusion of the death penalty for a minor between the ages of nine and thirteen who sleeps with the wife of a fellow Jew. In the words אשת רעהו they see an exclusion of the death penalty for someone who sleeps with the wife of a Gentile (compare Sanhedrin 52). The words אשת איש indicate that sleeping with the wife of a minor is also not subject to the death penalty. Our verse proves that a marriage ceremony entered into with a Gentile is not considered a legal marriage.

Excluding a minor. You might ask that this is obvious since he is not liable for [any] punishment. The answer is that it is telling us that although the minor is not punished, she [an adult] is punished even if a minor had relations with her.

ואיש אשר ינאף, “and a man who becomes guilty of adultery, etc.” the Torah repeats all the prohibitions listed already in the previous portion in chapter 18, and spells out the respective penalties for each type of transgression. Some of them are arrived at by the use of the g’zeyrah shaveh, one of the 13 tools used by Rabbi Yishmael in linking the written Torah to the oral Torah. [marrying, or sleeping with two sisters at the time when both are alive. (Sifra)]

אשר ינאף את אשת איש WHO COMMITTETH ADULTERY WITH ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE — a man's wife, thus excluding the wife of a minor from the death penalty. This teaches us that a minor cannot enter into a marriage contract. And in reference to what married woman do I make you liable to the death penalty?

Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc. Rashi here explains at length “Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc.,” instead of [simply] saying, “’Another man’s wife,’ excluding a non-Jew’s wife,” as he said [earlier], “’A man,’ excluding a minor.” This is because he is answering the question why the verse is lengthy and writes “who commits adultery” twice. It should have simply written, “Who commits adultery with another man’s wife, the wife of his fellow man.” Therefore, he explains that the verse itself is explaining its words, “Regarding which married woman have I required you, etc. Rashi explains further, “This teaches us, etc.,” to answer the question that what difference does it make [if her husband is non-Jewish]? She is [still] a married woman! Even though they [non-Jews] are not obligated in [performing] mitzvos, she is still a married woman! Therefore he explains, “This teaches us, etc.”

והנואפת, “and the woman who is a partner in the adultery.” If you were to ask where the warning was written concerning the woman adulteress, the answer is “the seventh of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20,12.”

אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו IF HE COMMITTETH ADULTERY WITH THE WIFE OF HIS FELLOW-MAN — his fellow-man, thus excluding the wife of a heathen; this teaches us that a heathen cannot enter into a marriage contract according to Jewish law (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8; Sanhedrin 52b).

Strangulation. Because it is written “shall be... put to death” without specifying [which death penalty], and this [case here is] a death administered by man. And we also find “death” mentioned without specifying [which death penalty], regarding a death administered by heaven, by [the deaths of] Er and Onan where it is written (Bereishis 38:10), “And He also put him to death.” [Therefore, we say that] just as a [an unspecified] death administered by heaven leaves no mark, so too, the death administered by man is one that leaves no mark. See all this in Sanhedrin (52b).

מות יומת הנאף והנאפת THE ADULTERER AND THE ADULTRESS SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH — Wherever a death penalty is mentioned in Scripture without being precisely defined, only strangulation is intended (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 8; Sanhedrin 55b).

אשר ישכב את אשת אביו, “who engages in carnal relations with the wife of his father;” the reason for this choice of words is that it includes both the guilty person’s mother and a woman that at one time was his father’s wife, totally unrelated to him. How do we know that it also relates to his mother who had never been his father’s wife? When discussing the penalty for such a sexual union, the Torah writes here: ערות אביו גלה, “he revealed the nakedness of his father,” and it writes chapter 18,7 that he must not reveal the nakedness of his father;” it is clear therefore that just as there, by repeating that the prohibition is applicable to his mother as well as to his stepmother, so the same is true here by describing her as his mother; here too the same rule applies. According to the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 54 what is meant is a woman whom his father had raped, as a result of which she had become his mother.

את אשת אביו, it says here: “he had uncovered his father’s nakedness [by sleeping with that woman, Ed] and it had said in chapter 18,8: “you must not reveal the nakedness of your father’s wife;” just as there “his father’s wife,” included carnal relations with his father’s widow (sleeping with here after she had become widowed) so in our verse it also includes such a scenario, i.e. legal execution of both parties involved, (Sanhedrin 54)

תבל עשו THEY HAVE WROUGHT תבל — i. e. they have done a shameful deed. Another interpretation is that תבל is connected with בלל to "intermingle" and signifies that they mingle (בּלל) the seed of the father with the seed of the son.

They mix. According to the first interpretation, the root [of the word] is תבל, which has [two meanings], an expression of despising, or a term referring to all the lands [of the world]. According to the second interpretation, its root is בלל.

משכבי אשה means he inserts as a brush into a tube [i.e. in the manner of marital intercourse].

One inserts. Because if not so, why write “in the same manner as with a woman?” Is there another way to lie with a male that the verse has to say “in the same manner as with a woman” in order to exclude this other way of lying?

משכבי אשה, intercourse in the full sense of the word, not fondling or premature withdrawal of either party’s male organ.

Stick. Rashi explains in Bava Metzia (91a), “As one inserts a stick or spoon into a hollow tube with make-up inside, and extracts out the make-up and applies it on the eye. (R. Noson)

תועבה מעשה שניהם, both parties are guilty of an abomination (perversion), unless one party had been raped.,

ישרפו אתו ואתהן [AND IF A MAN TAKE A WIFE AND HER MOTHER, IT IS WICKEDNESS] THEY SHALL BE BURNT [WITH FIRE] BOTH HE AND THEY — You cannot say that this means that they shall burn also his first wife (i. e. her whom he married first), because you must admit that he married her legally for she was not forbidden to him as a wife. But the fact is that the case of “a woman and her mother": mentioned here must be a case where both of them are forbidden to him on account of a previous relationship to him, — that, for instance, after having married a woman, he marries also his mother-in-law and her mother. It is these two that have to be burnt. There are, however, some of our Rabbis who say we have here a case of where, in addition to having married a woman, he marries only his mother-in-law (but not also the latter's mother). But what then could be the meaning of אתהן? It means one of them (“את "הן) and this is a Greek word, הן (ξυ) meaning “one" (Sanhedrin 76b; Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 12).

One of them. (Gur Aryeh) Why does it not write “he and her”? The answer is that if Scripture had written this I would think [the prohibition applies only] if one married the daughter legally and the mother illegally as the verse implies “Who marries a woman and her mother.” I would then say [the prohibition applies] only if the daughter was first and the mother afterwards, and that “her” referred to “her mother.” But now that it is written אתהן [which means] “one of them,” [this indicates that the prohibition applies] whether he married the mother first and the daughter illegally [and] the daughter is liable, or married the daughter first and the mother afterwards [and] the mother is liable.

ואיש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה, זמה היא, באש ישררפו .“if a man takes his mother in law as a sexual partner in addition to his wife, this is a perversion; they shall be executed by “burning;” (having molten lead poured into their throats.) How do we know from the wording of this verse that the same penalty applies to someone who engages in sexual relations with both his daughter and his granddaughter (by this daughter)? The sages use the principle known as g’zeyrah shavah, one of the 13 principles of valid interpretation expounded by Rabbi Yishmael in Torat Kohanim, [and recited in our daily morning prayers. Ed.] that when (for no otherwise compelling reason) the Torah used the same wording in discussing different subjects, it was in order to teach us that the details of these subjects have something in common halachically. In this case, it is the word: זמה, used for perversion here, and the same word used in chapter 18,17, where the subject was “mother, daughter, and granddaughter,” (including her son’s daughter) becoming the sexual partners of the same male. In other words, violating the laws expounded in either verse are punishable by the same type of death penalty, burning. How do I know that it does not matter in this respect if the biological relationships discussed here are based on the male or the female respectively? We find the expressions הנה, “they are,” and the expressions זמה, “perversion” both in18,17, where it describes the biological relationships of the parties involved by the word שאר, which loosely translated means “family relation.” The subject is elaborated on in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 76, where different methods of legal executions are discussed, with emphasis on the penalty of “burning.” (B’chor shor, also)., “perversion

ואיש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה, זמה היא, באש ישררפו “if a man takes his motherinlaw as a sexual partner in addition to his wife, this is a perversion; they shall be executed by “burning;” (having molten lead poured into their throats.) How do we know from the wording of this verse that the same penalty applies to someone who engages in sexual relations with both his daughter and his granddaughter (by this daughter)? The sages use the principle known as g’zeyrah shavah, one of the 13 principles of valid interpretation expounded by Rabbi Yishmael in Torat Kohanim, [and recited in our daily morning prayers. Ed.] that when (for no otherwise compelling reason) the Torah used the same wording in discussing different subjects, it was in order to teach us that the details of these subjects have something in common halachically. In this case, it is the word: זמה, used for perversion here, and the same word used in chapter 18,17, where the subject was “mother, daughter, and granddaughter,” (including her son’s daughter) becoming the sexual partners of the same male. In other words, violating the laws expounded in either verse are punishable by the same type of death penalty, burning. How do I know that it does not matter in this respect if the biological relationships discussed here are based on the male or the female respectively? We find the expressions הנה, “they are,” and the expressions זמה, “perversion” both in18,17, where it describes the biological relationships of the parties involved by the word שאר, which loosely translated means “family relation.” The subject is elaborated on in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 76, where different methods of legal executions are discussed, with emphasis on the penalty of “burning.” (B’chor shor, also)., “perversion

ואת הבהמה תהרגו AND YE SHALL SLAY THE BEAST — If the man has sinned, what sin has the beast committed? But because the man’s opportunity to stumble (to sin) was occasioned by it, therefore Scripture says, “let it be stoned"! How much the more does this principle apply to a human being who knows to distinguish between good and evil and yet brings evil upon his fellow-man by inducing him to commit a sin. In a similar way you should explain: (Deuteronomy 12:2) “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places [where the nations… served their gods… under every bushy tree]" Now is not the following a logical conclusion? How is it in the case of trees which can neither see nor hear? Merely because an opportunity to sin was occasioned by them Scripture says, "Destroy, burn, exterminate them!״ One who makes his fellow-man deviate from the path of lifeto the path of death, does it not follow all the more that he should be punished? (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 5; cf. Sanhedrin 54a, 55a.)

ואת הבהמה תהרגו, “and the beast you shall kill.” Rashi, following our sages, asks the rhetorical question why the animal should be killed seeing it had not committed a crime? The answer given is that seeing the animal was the catalyst leading to the sin by the human being involved in the act the Torah decreed that it be stoned to death. You may apply some logic here. If even an animal which is unable to distinguish between right and wrong is executed, how much more so will execution be the penalty for a human being who does know right from wrong. When a human being is the cause of a fellow human committing a sin, he is certainly culpable for what he did.
We have a verse in Deut. 12,2 where the Torah commands us to destroy all the sites on which idolatry was performed by the Canaanites prior to the Israelites coming to the Holy Land. This provides us with a similar reason of why humans guilty of idolatry will be subject to the death penalty. If even trees, which most certainly were totally passive and had no knowledge of something sinful being performed involving them, are subject to destruction on account of this, how much more so are human beings who were the cause of another human being induced to worship idols through deceiving such a person, subject to execution for their deeds?

ואת הבהמה תהרוגו, “and the beast (involved in this perversion) you have to kill.” The reason is in order to prevent it to be used in the same manner again and thus cause a Jew to commit this sin.

לרבעה, “and lie down with it (the beast);” the letter ה at the end of this word does not have a dot, [which would have had significance as a pronoun, Ed.]

מות יומתו, דמיהם בם, “they will both be put to death, their blood shall be upon them.” The animal in question also acted in a perverted manner, as it has been equipped with an instinctive feeling for what is appropriate for it and what not. Man’s perversions during the antediluvian period, eventually resulted in the perversions of the beasts, and this is why they all had to die together with the human beings. After all, the woman surely did not rape the beast!. She could easily have avoided this experience. On the other hand, when discussing a male committing a sexual act with a female beast, the Torah does not describe the beast as bearing blood guilt, since no doubt the beast had been passive and unable to resist. (verse 15) [In that instance the reason why the beast is also killed is that otherwise the disgrace of a human being treated as inferior even to a beast would have reflected negatively on the whole human race. Ed.]

חסד הוא IT IS A WICKED THING — It is an Aramaic expression, the Hebrew חרפה (disgrace) being in that language חסודא (cf. Onkelos on Genesis 34:14). A Midrashic explanation of it (of חסד הוא) is; If you should say, "But Cain married his sister!" then I reply, Cain's case was an exceptional one; an act of kindness (חסד) was done by the Omnipresent in order that His world might be built up through him (i. e. He made the propagation of the human race possible through this union), as it is said (Psalms 89:3) "The world was built up through חסד, loving-kindness" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 11; Sanhedrin 58b).

AND IF A MAN ‘YIKACH’ (SHALL TAKE) HIS SISTER. Scripture mentions the term kichah [“taking,” which generally denotes the taking of a woman as a wife] in the case of a sister, although betrothal to her is not valid, because a brother and sister sleep together in one house, and when his desire overpowers him, he takes her and draws her to himself, and he does not have to come to her as one does to a woman who is a harlot. Similarly it is the way of Scripture to use the term “taking” in the case of all those with whom one remains alone, for a wife and her mother,²⁴⁴Verse 14. [a wife] and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter,²⁴⁵Above, 18:17. a wife and her sister,²⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 18. and a brother’s wife²⁶⁰Further, Verse 21. are all [found] with him in one house [hence Scripture uses the term “taking” in each of these cases]. For a similar reason Scripture uses this expression in the following verse, A man shall not ‘take’ his father’s wife.²⁶¹Deuteronomy 23:1. The expression and he see her nakedness is an euphemism, since Scripture modifies its expression in speaking of forbidden relationships. Sometimes it calls sexual intercourse “uncovering of nakedness,” as it says in the case of most of the forbidden women, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness, for it is the way of those who commit fornication to uncover her skirts, similar to that which is said, and I will uncover thy skirts upon thy face;²⁶²Nahum 3:5. and at times it calls it “entering,” thus: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her;²⁶³Deuteronomy 22:13. to come in unto us;²⁶⁴Genesis 19:31. and he came in unto her, and she conceived by him.²⁶⁵Ibid., 38:18. Many times Scripture calls it “lying,” and here it refers to it as “seeing,” since brother and sister lodge together and there is no need for uncovering of skirts. Similarly Scripture uses the euphemism “knowing,” as in the following expressions: And the man knew Eve his wife;²⁶⁶Ibid., 4:1. and he knew her again no more;²⁶⁷Ibid., 38:26. a virgin, neither had any man known her.²⁶⁸Ibid., 24:16. And Scripture states [here in the verse before us] and she see his nakedness, meaning to say that she too desired his nakedness in her heart and consented thereto. Now it mentions these expressions only in the case of a sister, because in all forbidden relations when a man approaches a woman for the purpose of uncovering her nakedness, it is generally with her consent, and otherwise she can remove herself from him and cry for help, but in the case of a brother [and sister] who lodge together, it may be that it was done without her knowledge, and therefore Scripture mentioned that she too “saw his nakedness.”

חסד הוא, the word חסד here is to be understood in the same sense as the same word in Proverbs 25,10 פן יחסדך שומע, “lest the one who hears it puts you to shame.” We also find the word having such a meaning in Proverbs 14,34 וחסד לאומים חטאת, “even the kindness of nations is a form of sin.” This is also the way Rav Yoseph translates this word in his commentary on Proverbs.

ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, “and a man who takes his sister as a wife.” Nachmanides already comments on why the Torah here uses an expression for a sexual union which elsewhere always means a legal union, i.e. marriage. This seems especially inappropriate, as, according to halachah, any such “marriage” ceremony between brother and sister is null and void. Nachmanides therefore does not understand the word יקח here in the legal sense of the word, but as a graphic description of how brother and sister who both live under the same roof are liable to slide into an intimate relationship precisely because they are so familiar with one another and the frequency of the opportunity makes it hard to resist. Whereas the normal expression in halachah describing sexual intercourse between two people is ביאה, i.e. one party has to “come” to the other, here, due to both parties already being in the same location, that word would lose its normal connotation. All the brother has to do is יקח, take the sister, just as he takes a glass of water. You will find that the Torah has adopted this phraseology of יקח whenever the union of heterosexual relatives who are likely to live in the same house is described.

And its midrashic interpretation: And if you argue that Cain, etc. (Nachalas Yaakov) Explanation. Even though Adam could have married his daughter since a non-Jew is permitted to have relations with his daughter, and the resultant daughter would have been a niece to Kayin. This [union] is permitted even for a Jew. Although she would have been his paternal sister, a non-Jew is not regarded as related to his father. Nevertheless, the Holy One did an act of kindness with His world and forbade them to Adam and permitted them to Kayin so that the world would be built speedily. Re’m raises a difficulty, “You might ask that this implies that if not because of “the world is built [in] kindness,” he would have been forbidden to his sister. But if so, how did the tribes marry their sisters according to R. Yehudah who says that twin sisters were born with each and every tribe and they married them? The answer is that only one’s maternal sister is forbidden [to a non-Jew], whereas a paternal [sister] is permitted. Therefore the tribes married the twin sisters of the other tribes.

ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, when the Torah uses the expression קיחה in connection with someone’s attempt to marry his sister, something outlawed and therefore illegal, legally irrelevant, the word implies that the person to be married is legally free to marry the member of the opposite sex in question. This automatically excludes, gentiles, or the child of a Canaanite slave woman. [perhaps the author felt that the Torah had to repeat the point as, through conversion, such family bonds as had existed had been halachically severed. Ed.]

ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, “and if a man takes his sister as a wife, etc;” from verse 18,9, the sages derived what kind of sister and from what kind of mother is prohibited on pains of what penalty. The subject is dealt with in detail in the Talmud Yevamot folios 22 and 23.

IT IS ‘CHESED.’ In the opinion of the commentators²⁶⁹Rashi and R’dak (in Sefer Hashorashim, root chesed). chesed here means “shame,” because all people will naturally be ashamed of this ugly sin, this being used here as in the Aramaic language, for Onkelos translated, for that were ‘a disgrace’ unto us,²⁷⁰Genesis 34:14. “for that were chisudo unto us.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated and I will lay it for ‘a reproach,’²⁷¹I Samuel 11:2. “[and I will lay it for] chisudo.” And in the language of the Sages [we find]:²⁷²Ruth Rabbah 7:11. “Because shechasdo (he shamed him) in public.” Similarly, lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’²⁷³Proverbs 25:10. means “lest he cause you shame upon your revealing the secret of another.”
And they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. The intention thereof is as follows: “You have done this secretly, but G-d will reveal your sin by bringing upon you a punishment before all the children of your people.” He mentioned this with reference to a sin which is done in utmost secrecy, but it applies as well to all [sins punishable by] excision, as I have mentioned. He hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. This means that if he had uncovered his sister’s nakedness against her will, he alone shall bear his iniquity, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented. But in my opinion the expression he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity means that each one of those mentioned [will bear the iniquity], just like the expression for he hath made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.²⁷⁴Verse 19.
The correct interpretation of the word chesed [it is ‘chesed’] appears to me to be according to its plain sense [“goodness,” “kindness”]. So also is the opinion of our Rabbis.²⁷⁵Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 11:9. “It is ‘chesed.’ And if you should say: ‘But Cain did marry his sister!’ It is for this reason that Scripture states, it is ‘chesed’ [an act of kindness — done by the Creator in order that the world be built up], for the world from its very start was created only by kindness, as it is said, The world was built up through kindness” (Psalms 89:3). The verse is thus stating that the brother’s kinship is kindness,²⁷⁶I.e., a brother’s kinship to his sister should express itself in kindness, as that is the essence of kinship, whereas he has acted to the contrary. and it is not proper for the uncovering of nakedness. Thus in the case of other relations Scripture mentions that the reason [for the prohibition of sexual intercourse] is because they are next of kin, but in the case of a brother [and sister] it mentions as the reason the kindness which should be among them. The word ish [and if ‘a man’ shall take his sister] thus draws along with it a similar word [so that the expression it is ‘chesed’ becomes “it is ish chesed,” meaning: “it is a man who should have acted kindly to her, but he did the contrary, and hence his punishment is severe”]. Or it may be that [the expression it is ‘chesed’] is like: and I am prayer²⁷⁷Psalms 109:4. [which means: “and I am ‘a man of’ prayer”; for thou art precious things²⁷⁸Daniel 9:23. [which means: “for thou art ‘a man of’ precious things”]; Behold, I am against thee, O arrogance²⁷⁹Jeremiah 50:31. [which means: “‘man of’ arrogance”], in all of which cases the word ish (man) is missing [and here too that word is omitted, as if it were to say: “it is ish chesed,” as explained above]. Or it may be that Scripture in these cases refers to these men by their qualities [as if to say, “kindness personifies the brother,” “I am all prayer,” “he is all preciousness,” or “arrogance personified”. Thus Scripture is stating, And if a man shall take his sister … and see her nakedness … he is [to have been] the man of kindness, and they shall be cut off, for he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. Thus He mentioned that the brother should have been the merciful man who doeth good to his own soul, but he was cruel and troubled his own flesh.²⁸⁰Proverbs 11:17. For he should have done the kindness to her that brothers do, to give her in marriage to a husband, but he blemished and troubled her. Scripture ascribes the fault in such cases to the male, just as it is said, he hath uncovered his brother’s [wife’s] nakedness; they shall be childless²⁸¹Verse 21. [and likewise here too it states, ‘he’ hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness]. Similarly it is my opinion that the expression, lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’²⁷³Proverbs 25:10. means “lest he that hears it will remove from you all kindness, because you have not shown kindness to your friend who entrusted you with his secret.” [The word y’chasedcha here meaning “remove kindness”] is like: l’dashno²⁸²Exodus 27:3. [the root of which deshen in its primary sense means “to cover with ashes,” but also has the opposite meaning of “removing the ashes”]; and all mine increase ‘t’shareish’²⁸³Job 31:12. [which, in its ordinary form, would mean “to take root,” but also has the opposite meaning of “rooting out”], and similar cases. [Likewise, y’chasedcha which is of the root chesed, kindness, means in the verse quoted “remove kindness,” and does not mean “shame.”] For it appears to me unlikely that the word chesed in the Sacred Language should bear such opposite meanings [as “kindness” and “shame”], when Scriptural texts abound in the praise of chesed and use it in prayers. The term chisudo, however, in Aramaic is another matter. Even that language differentiates between the two usages; “kindness” is translated chisdo,²⁸⁴Genesis 39:21: and He showed him ‘chased’ Onkelos translates: “and He showed him [Joseph] chisdo” (mercy, kindness). and “shame” is translated chisudo.²⁸⁵As Onkelos translated in Genesis 34:14 [mentioned above]. Now Rabbeinu Chananel²⁸⁶See Exodus, Vol. II, p. 106, Note 45, on Rabbeinu Chananel. It is of interest here to add that in view of the fact that Ramban quotes an interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel on a verse in the Book of Proverbs, it would seem to indicate that Rabbeinu Chananel’s exegetic activity extended also to the Scriptural books in the division of the Writings, in addition to those on the Pentateuch and the Prophets. See my introduction to “Peirushei Rabbeinu Chananel al Ha’torah,” Mosad Harav Kook, 1972. wrote that ‘chesed’ to any people is sin²⁸⁷Proverbs 14:34. means “reproach” [i.e., that sin is “a reproach” to any people]. But in my opinion this too is an expression of contrast [as will be explained]. For “righteousness” and chesed are mentioned in that verse [thus: Righteousness exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ to any people is sin], these being twin terms mentioned in all places, as for example: he that followeth after righteousness and ‘chesed;’²⁸⁸Ibid., 21:21. that I am the Eternal who exercises ‘chesed,’ justice, and righteousness in the earth.²⁸⁹Jeremiah 9:23. Rather, the meaning of the verse in my opinion is as follows: “Righteousness if practiced exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ (mercy, kindness) is a reproach to any people if it fails to practice it.” Thus the verse is stating that upon righteousness and mercy depends the elevation or the decline of any people. Or it may be [that the verse is] stating: “Righteousness exalts any individual nation that practices it, while many nations sin by their failure to do mercy.” A similar example of such a verse is the one immediately preceding it: In the heart of him that hath discernment, wisdom resteth; but in the inward part of fools it maketh itself known,²⁹⁰Proverbs 14:33. the meaning of which is that “it makes itself known that [wisdom] is not there,” for all who see them recognize by their deeds that they are fools and there is no understanding in them.²⁹¹Deuteronomy 32:28. These two verses [thus express their thoughts in their second half] in a negative manner.²⁹²Thus: Mercy is a reproach to any people if it does not practice it. In the inward part of fools it makes itself known that wisdom does not rest therein.
Emor

וראה את ערותה, “and he sees her nakedness;” Nachmanides writes that it is the style of the Torah to teach morality by varying the expressions used for the same phenomenon. Sometimes sexual intercourse by people whose sexual union is forbidden is described as “revealing nakedness,” other times it is described as “seeing nakedness,” as here. Other times the same act is simply described as “sleeping or lying together.” The reason why the Torah may have chosen to describe brother/sister sexual relations as “seeing nakedness,” may be because being in the same house together all the time” may not have left much to reveal that either one of them had not seen before without their being intimate with one another. By repeating that the sister also saw her brother naked, the Torah may indicate that the attraction and desire was completely mutual and that neither force nor enticement was needed. When a female is seduced unwillingly, she would protest in the loudest possible terms. What is described here therefore occurred by mutual consent, so that no investigation was needed to determine that both were equally guilty. [Compare Deut. Chapter 22 where seduction or rape between two people not related to one another genetically are discussed. Ed.] Seeing that when brother and sister are in the habit of sleeping in the same bed, the brother might have perpetrated his act without the prior consent of his sister, or even without her knowledge, the Torah reports her consent in order to justify the penalty she will have to suffer.

והיא תראה את ערותו, “and she sees his nakedness;” the word והיא is written with the letter י to make certain that there can be no misunderstanding as to who is meant.

חסד הוא, “it is a shameful disgraceful act.” People, by nature, possess a sense of shame that often deters them from committing sins, acts that are despicable. We find the word חסד in that context in Proverbs 25,10 פן יחסדך שומע, “lest he who will hear it puts you to shame.” (By revealing something you would have preferred to keep secret.) Nachmanides writes that he feels that the word חסד in our verse is used in the way it is used in nearly all other instances in the Bible, namely referring to an act of kindness. How then does this fit our situation? Precisely because brother and sister are closely related it was the duty of the brother to see to it that his sister find a suitable husband, something he has now made difficult if not impossible because he indulged his lust. The Torah repeatedly stated that the prohibition to reveal the other party’s nakedness was because of the close relationship that exists between such parties, so that it is taking unfair advantage of that relationship. It is as if the Torah asks the rhetorical question: “is this the way you show your sister true kindness?” The Torah speaks of חסד in the masculine mode, i.e. הוא to show that it always considers the male to have been the one initiating the intimacy between the two. This approach can also be applied to the verse from Proverbs we quoted earlier, namely: “the one who revealed your innermost secret has deprived you of all the kindness he should have shown you.”

תראה את ערותו, “the relationship is consensual.”

ונכרתו לעיני עם, “they shall be cut off in the sight of their whole nation.” The message of this verse is that when you commit a sin in secret, I, G’d, will see to it that it becomes public by means of the penalty I will exact from you in plain view of all. The Torah chose to tell us this in connection with sins usually committed in the privacy of one’s home. What applies here also applies to all the sins that are punishable by the karet penalty.

חסד הוא, “it is a shameful thing;” The word הוא, is spelled with the vowel shuruk; this vowel reveals that it is the male in that relationship who is guilty. The first section of the verse speaks of consensual perverse relationship between brother and sister, a relationship both try to keep concealed; hence the Torah adds that their punishment will be very public, an example of how the punishment fits the crime. The second part of the verse assumes that the brother had raped his sister, hence the punishment is confined to the brother,

ערות אחותו גלה, עונו ישא, “he will have to bear the burden of his sin for having revealed the nakedness of his sister.” Ibn Ezra adds that if her brother had raped his sister so that only he alone had revealed the nakedness of his sister, of course, only the brother will be subject to the penalty described here. Nachmanides writes that the reason that the word עונו, “his guilt,” is written in the singular mode is that each of the two parties will have to bear the burden of their joint sin individually. It is similar to the situation in verse 19 where the Torah uses the word עוונם, “their collective guilt” in the plural mode. Ibn Ezra mentions that the reason why the Torah did not spell out the penalty for sleeping with the grandson or granddaughter may be that the senior partner in that relationship, due to old age, may not get much carnal pleasure out of gratifying his desire.

עונו ישא, “he will have to carry the burden of his guilt.

הערה means HE HATH UNCOVERED. Similarly the term ערוה everywhere denotes "uncovering". The ו in the word ערוה nakedness, is inserted in the root ערה in order to form a noun of it, just as the noun זעוה, "trembling", is of the same derivation as זע in the phrase (Esther 5:9) "and he stood not up and did not tremble (זע)". Similarly, אחוה "brotherhood", is of the same derivation as אח, brother. As for this term "uncovering" our Rabbis differ in the meaning they give to it (Yevamot 55b). Some say that it is the mere contact of the tip of the organ, while others say that it is the insertion of the tip.

את מקורה הערה, “he has bared the source of her blood.” Ibn Ezra views this expression, used here for the first time, as an indication that the Torah considers this sleeping with a menstruating partner as an abomination reflecting something very depraved. He explains the additional words:

והיא גלתה את מקור דמיה, “and she revealed the source of her blood,” as applicable only if she was a willing partner in the union, not if she had been raped.

'וערות אחות אמך וגו‎‎‎ [AND THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER] THE NAKEDNESS OF THY MOTHERS SISTER [NOR OF THY FATHER’S SISTER] — Scripture repeats the prohibition regarding these (although they had been mentioned already in Leviticus 18:12, 13) to tell us that one is prohibited in respect to them, both in regard to one's father's or mother's sister on their father's side, and in regard to their sisters on their mother's side. But as regards a marriage being forbidden with the wife of one's father’s brother (cf. Leviticus 18:14) the prohibition (i.e. the איסור ערוה מדאורייתא) applies only to the wife of the brother of one's father when he is the father’s brother on the father’s side (i. e. when both have one father) (cf. Yevamot 54b).

כי את שארו הערה, “for he has made naked his nearest kin,” if he had raped her.

If the relationship had been consensual, both will have to carry the burden of their sins,עונם ישאו.

אשר ישכב את דדתו AND IF A MAN SHALL LIE WITH HIS AUNT… [THEY SHALL DIE CHILDLESS] — This verse is intended to teach that the "excision" mentioned above (18:29, where "all these abominations includes the union prohibited in v. 14 of that chapter) consists in their (the offenders’) passing from this world childless.

ערירים ימותו , Heaven will interfere with such couples’ ability to conceive and to give birth to viable children.

That it [involves] the punishment of remaining childless. Explanation: In [parshas] Acharei Mos it is written, after mentioning all the arayos (18:29), “Their souls will be cut off, etc.” This includes the punishment of being childless, because in general, koreis means that he is cut off and his children are cut off. However, I [still] would not know which children are cut off. Are those he had before the sin included in [his] punishment, or specifically those born after the sin, as they were born of a wicked person? Thus the verse [here], “they will die without children,” comes to indicate that they will die childless as they are now [when they sinned, because any children he has from now on will die]. And the [next] verse “They will be without children,” comes to indicate that when they die they will be childless, because if he had children he will bury them, whether he had them before the sin or after the sin, they will all be cut off. Some texts, however, turn it round (Nachalas Yaakov). Re’m raises a question. How can we say that koreis means that he and his seed are cut off? The Gemara (Mo’ed Katan 28a) says in connection with Shmuel the Ramati, that [dying like Shmuel at] 52 years is the death of koreis [which is between 50 and 60 years], and the reason the Gemara did not mention this [in an earlier statement] was due to Shmuel’s honor, since the Holy One had [actually] shortened his years so that he should not witness his sons’ deaths. But why should the Gemara not mention this because of Shmuel’s honor? Since he had sons this could not have been koreis? The answer is that the Tosefta says that [koreis] only applies to small sons who do not have their own merit, and does not apply to adult sons. Therefore, there is no [contrary] proof from Shmuel the Ramati as they were adults.

ערירים — Translate this as the Targum renders it: בלא ולד, childless. Similar is, (Genesis 15:2) "and I will pass away childless (ערירי)”. If he has children he will bury them (i. e. they will die during his life-time); if he has no children when this sin is committed he will die childless (he will beget no children afterwards). That is why Scripture varies the expression in these two verses (this and the following) here stating ערירים ימתו, "they shall die childless", and there ערירים יהיו, "they shall be childless". The expression ערירים ימתו implies: if he has any children at the time he commits the sin, he shall have none remaining when he dies because he will bury them during his lifetime; ערירים יהיו on the other hand, implies: if he has no children at the time when he commits the sin, he shall remain all his life just as he was then (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 7; Yevamot 55a).

נדה הוא means, this cohabitation ought to be kept at a distance (avoided) and is loathsome. Our Rabbis explained that these words prohibit the slightest approach to her [I.e. one is liable for superficial contact, as is defined in the commentary on verse 18] just as though she were a נדה in the case of whom such intimacy is expressly stated as forbidden, as it says, (v. 18) “he hath uncovered her fountain” (cf. Yevamot 54a).

אשת אחיו, נדה היא, “the wife of his brother, is as forbidden as a menstruating woman.” Our sages (Yevamot 54) interpret this somewhat unclear wording to mean that even incomplete coitus with one’s sister-in-law is as serious a sin as sleeping with one’s own wife while she is menstruating. The penalty makes this point quite clear. Some commentators feel that the Torah was especially harsh here, seeing that under certain circumstances, such as the brother having died without ever having had children, it may actually become a mitzvah to marry this sister-in-law who had become widowed by performing the levirate marriage ceremony with her.

נדה היא, “it is equivalent to sleeping with a woman during her period.” The comparison with a woman during her menses is that just as his wife is permissible to her during certain periods and not others, so a brother’s wife if she had become a widow and had never had any children would not only be permissible to him, but he would fulfill a commandment by marrying her in a levirate ceremony.

ושמרתם את כל חקותי, "And you shall observe all My statutes, etc. The reason the Torah had to repeat this verse although we have read it already in 18,26 is to urge us to ensure that the statutes do not become abolished in practice through failure of either oneself or others to observe them. Observance of the statutes insures that the land will not spew you out. If the community one lives in fails to protest non-observance of these חוקים by others one will still be subject to the land spewing out its inhabitants even if personally one had been meticulous in one's observance of Torah law.

You shall keep all of My statutes. We have explained that keeping the statues and the laws, which are the Talmudic questions and answers, protects a person that he will not come to the point of illicit relations. Here, Scripture adds that even if, Heaven forbid, the generation is lax about illicit relations, and this is a cause for exile from the Land of Israel, nevertheless, if they are diligent in Torah study then the merit of the Torah will assist that the Land of Israel will not vomit them out. Rather, they will be punished at that time in the Land of Israel. This is stated in Nedarim (81a) in reference to the verse (Yirmiyahu 9:11), “Why is the Land of Israel ruined? …” — this matter was asked to the wise men and to the prophets, and the response came in the words of Hashem (ibid. 12), “Because they have forsaken My Torah.” Although it is known that during the Destruction of the First Temple there was idolatry, illicit relations, and bloodshed, in any case, if it were not for forsaking the Torah the Land of Israel would not have been completely destroyed.

ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “and you are to observe all My statutes.” You must not violate any of the commandments involving sexual restrictions and incest. (bn Ezra)

ואת כל משפטי, “and all My instructions concerning penalties for transgressing these laws,” by your judges seeing to this.

ושמרתם את כל חקתי, “the reason why the Torah has repeated this phrase once again, is to remind the people that G-d’s statutes apply in the Diaspora as well as in he Holy Land. In this verse only the statutes applicable in the Holy Land are meant.

קוץ — ואקץ signifies loathsomeness. Similar is: (Genesis 27:46) "I am sick (קצתי) of my life”, like a man who is disgusted with his food (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 16).

ולא תלכו בחקות הגוי, “you must not adopt the statutes of gentile nations.” The reason why this too has been repeated here is so that you could not claim that these statutes are only the ones that apply to the Israelites as a community, but not to statutes that apply to them as individuals.

ואני אתננה לכם..ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, "And I give to you… a land flowing with milk and honey." After G'd had already said: "in order for you to inherit it," why does the Torah have to add the words: "and I will give it to you?" Besides, why does the Torah link the excellence of the land to our inheriting it? The answer may be that not only does G'd give us the land as an inheritance, but He gives us an addditonal gift namely the excellence of this land. The Torah also hints that the excellence of the land is linked to our inhabiting it as an inheritance. Should the Temple and Jewish independence be destroyed, the excellence of the land would disappear because it no longer serves as our inheritance. Unfortunately we have had to learn the truth of this due to our sins.

ואני אתננה לכם, “and I shall give it to you.” With these three words G’d the Unique promises to give the land which is unique to the people who are unique, to Israel. This is the meaning of the words: “and I shall give it to you as a possession.” G’d means that up until that time the land of Canaan had remained His land just as the Jewish people had been special to G’d. He had never assigned any horoscopic constellation to govern the fate of the Jewish people. Neither had G’d appointed a special agent such as a מלאך or שרף to be in charge of the fortunes of the Jewish people. The reason is that “you are part of My share, not their share, I am your national G’d, not theirs.” To the other nations, says G’d, I am only the supreme G’d, i.e. אלוהי האלוהים. This is how Nachmanides explains the above words; (even though this is not his precise wording, this is what he intended to say).

אתם תירשו את אדמתם, “you are about to inherit their land.” You are going to be their heirs as you preceded them in observing My commandments even before being ordered to do so, as our author had explained on chapter18,26.

ואני אתננה לכם, “and I will give it to you;” seeing that as the children of Shem, son of Noach who was older that Cham, from whom they have descended, your claim is older. All they (the Canaanites) did while occupying that land was to preserve it for the time when it would become yours. (Sifra)

אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G-d.” Anyone who has Me as his G-d, needs none other.

והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהרה לטמאה YE SHALL THEREFORE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CLEAN BEASTS AND UNCLEAN — It is needless for Scripture to say that one should distinguish between a cow and an ass for these are different and are therefore distinguishable. But it means: you shall distinguish between such an animal as is clean (permitted) to you and such as is unclean (forbidden) to you although it is a clean animal per se, i.e., make a distinction between an animal which has been killed by cutting at least the greater part of each organ (the gullet and the windpipe) or whether it has been killed by cutting exactly the half of each organ. And how much difference is there between the greater part and the exact half? A hair’s breadth only (and consequently the command is given: והבדלתם, “you shall very carefully distinguish”) (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 20; cf. also Rashi on Leviticus 11:47 and Chullin 27a).

ולא תשקצו את נפשותיכם בבהמה ובעוף ובכל אשר תרמוש האדמה, from all kinds of “impure” living creatures אשר הבדלתי לכם, from the ritually “pure.”

Pure for you. Explanation: Pure or impure through your action. For example, if one slaughtered the whole gullet and only half the windpipe it is impure; if one slaughtered the whole gullet and most of the windpipe it is pure. I.e., you made it pure for eating.

'והבדלתם בין הבהמה הטהורה לטמאה, וגו, “you must distinguish between the ritually pure beasts, and the impure ones, etc.;” it is well known that the ritually pure beasts are far fewer in number than the ritually impure ones; this is why the Torah had mentioned them first as not so many need to be enumerated. The same applies to the ratio of ritually pure birds and those that are birds of prey. The reason for the warning here is that it is usual for the minority to eventually become assimilated to the majority and to lose their identifying traits. The Israelites therefore had to be warned to insure that this did not happen. Our author adds a warning to the teachers not to be overly long when explaining matters to their pupils so that they remain alert to concentrate on the essence rather than the more trivial parts. (Talmud, tractate Pessachim folio 3), [but prior to this, Solomon, in Kohelet,12,12. Ed.] Parrshat Emor

אשר הבדלתי לכם לטמא WHICH I HAVE SEPARATED FOR YOU TO DECLARE THEM UNCLEAN — This means, to declare them as forbidden.

לטמא, in the sense that physically revolting creatures and especially ingesting them, will eventually contaminate the soul, the spiritual basis of the human being who has consumed them. This negative fallout is the result only of eating such creatures, not of carrying on trade involving them.

To forbid. It is pertinent for the verse to speak of “distinguishing,” since Rashi explained that “impure” means “impure for you,” i.e., impure through your action, that the majority of one “sign” was not cut. But regarding something that is the way it is without any [human] action [such being a cow or donkey], since it is pure or impure of itself, it is not pertinent [to write] “you shall distinguish,” as [Rashi explained] above.

ואבדל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי ‎ AND I HAVE SEPARATED YOU FROM THE PEOPLES THAT YOU SHOULD BE MINE — If you hold yourselves apart from them then you will be Mine, but if not, you belong to (become subject to) Nebuchadnezzar and others like him. Rabbi Eleazer ben Azariah said, “Whence do we know that one should not say, "My soul loathes swine’s flesh”, or, “I have no desire to wear clothes which are a mixture of wool and linen”, but one should say, "I would, indeed, like them, but what can I do since my Father in heaven has imposed these decrees upon me”? Because Scripture states: “I have separated you from the peoples to be for Me", whichyour separation from them (from their doings) should be for My sake — that one should keep aloof from sin and take upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 12 23).

והייתם לי קדושים, "And you shall be holy unto Me, etc." The reason the Torah adds the word לי in this verse may best be understood in connection with the comment of Torat Kohanim on this verse that one should never say: "I cannot eat pig's meat," but one should say: "I would love to eat pig's meat but alas, G'd has forbidden it to me." Similarly in our verse G'd does not want us to be holy because we detest the various phenomena in this world G'd has prohibited to us, but He wants us to be holy because He has commanded us to be so, i.e. לי. This is also the reason this verse appears next to the commandment to separate between the ritually pure and the ritually impure mammals and fowl (verse 25).

The Torah added: כי קדוש אני, "for I am holy," to tell us the reason we must keep our distance from the impure creatures. G'd continues to explain this concept of separation. He has separated us from the Gentiles; it is no more than fitting then that we separate ourselves from the impure species. We have reason to bless the Lord for having set us apart from both human and animal impurity.

'‎כי יהיה בהם אוב וגו‎ [A MAN ALSO, OR A WOMAN] THAT HATH THE SPIRIT אוב, [OR THAT IS A WIZARD SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Here the penalty of death by stoning is mentioned for them, and above (Leviticus 20:6) it mentions excision! But the explanation is: If there were witnesses to the offence and the necessary warning had been given them, death by stoning is the punishment. If he acted wittingly but had not been warned, he is punishable with excision and if he breaks the law regarding them (the אוב or ידעוני) inadvertently, he has to bring a sin offering. And the same rules apply in the case of all persons who are subject to the death penalty, where excision is mentioned (i. e. in all such cases “stoning" or a sin offering is the punishment according to the circumstances).

ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בהם אוב או ידעוני, seeing that the thrust of all the preceding legislation had been to sanctify the Jewish people through their observance of these laws, anyone deviating from these commandments, turning instead to these oracles, is doing precisely the opposite of what the Torah wanted him to do. No wonder that his penalty is judicial execution by the harshest death penalty, i.e. being stoned to death.

ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בהם אוב או ידעוני, “any man or woman practicing the cult of ov or yidoni, etc.” The reason that the Torah mentions the word אשה especially, although like all negative commandments women are as culpable as men, is because women far more than men are known to have practiced these cults.

That is that He commanded to offer the grain offering of the omer. And that is the grain offering of barley on the sixteenth day of Nissan. And with it, we offer an unblemished year-old lamb. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "you shall bring the omer, etc." (Leviticus 23:10). This grain offering is what is called, "first fruits." And He hinted to it in His, may His name be blessed, saying, "And if you offer an offering of first fruits" (Leviticus 2:14). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) is, "Every, if, in the Torah connotes optionality, except for three which are obligatory. One is, 'And if you offer an offering of first fruits.' You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall offer the offering of your first fruits.' It is obligatory, not optional." And the regulations of this commandment have already all been completely explained in the tenth chapter of Menachot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 17.)