Pensée juive sur Le Lévitique 20:17

(1) Man is apt to sin for either of two reasons. Either he is overcome by physical temptation, or he subscribes to a faulty philosophy. In the latter event, his sin will be performed with dedication, since the sinner has become convinced that what he is doing is actually the will of the deity he worships. Warnings against this kind of sin must therefore be expressed in much stronger language than warnings against sins which are merely the result of weakness of the flesh, often only temporary. When warning against sins of the flesh, the Torah uses the term nefesh. When warning against aberrations due to intellectual misconceptions, the Torah uses the term ish, describing man's intellectual essence. The chapter dealing with immorality, incest etc. is introduced by a warning not to follow the lifestyle of the Egyptians, nor to adopt the lifestyle of the Canaanites. The former were more sophisticated, known for their intellect. Their physical corruption was rooted in a corrupt philosophy. The Canaanites, however were renowned for their physical prowess; their philosophy was only an outgrowth of their physical perversions. To counteract the former, the Torah says "observe My social laws, My philosophy, and keep My statutes." (in that order) Concerning the latter, the Torah says "keep My statutes and observe My social laws." (in that order) The purpose of the legislation is contained in the latter half of verse five, "that man shall perform them and live by them," meaning that we shall remain "human" only by observing Torah laws. The fact that the Torah stresses these practices as determining whether a person will retain the tzelem, the Divine image, which entitles him to the description Adam, human being in the true sense of the word, tells us that it is not the fundamental error of philosophy that requires the most urgent treatment. The errors stemming from physical urges require treatment on a priority basis. It is easier to disabuse the mind of ish of faulty reasoning, than to disabuse the nefesh, the physical essence of its urges. The repetition at the end of chapter eighteen, "for I am the Lord your G'd," is to impress upon us that we must observe this legislation not only out of fear of punishment, but because we appreciate the wisdom of the Creator revealed in this legislation. It is only in the next Parshah that the Torah addresses itself to many of the philosophic aberrations that we must avoid also.

The fundamental commandments that are not dependent on place, time, or any other factor are deeply rooted in the heart. They are the precepts, such as the charge that is entrusted to someone who is appointed to fulfill it. Therefore, King David said (Psalms 19:10), "The precepts of the Lord are upright, causing joy to the heart." These commandments were already known and weighed in the minds of the people before the giving of the Torah by the hand of Moses. They are numerous, like the Ten Commandments, except for the observance of the Sabbath, which was altered by Moses. Concerning these commandments, it is said (Genesis 26:5), "Because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." If Jacob, our forefather, had known the prohibition of all incestuous relationships, he would not have married two sisters simultaneously. Therefore, it is stated (Leviticus 18:27), "For all these abominations, the people of the land who were before you have done, and the land became defiled." This includes engaging in same-sex relations, which is contrary to the will of God and is abhorred in its entirety. Similarly, engaging in intercourse with other kinds and bestiality are prohibited. Therefore, it is appropriate to interpret (Leviticus 20:17) "The near kinswoman" as referring to a person who has a close familial connection with his sister, who is the daughter of his father and mother. In the same manner, it is said (Exodus 14:30), "And Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore." Consequently, Abraham said (Genesis 20:12), "Besides, she is truly my sister, my father's daughter, though not my mother's daughter." This serves as evidence that there is no punishment from the court for such cases. If one objects and asks why the prohibition is against the sister and not the brother, one might similarly ask why the distinction is made between a virgin and a non-virgin. However, this is not the proper legal argument to make in these cases.

However according to what we have indeed written about the matter of change in the commandments, everything is resolved. As it is possible that the prohibition of two sisters was not yet a sin at all during the time of the patriarchs, but was rather innovated afterward when the divine wisdom saw that a great catastrophe can come from this, given the jealousy of the children of Leah towards Joseph, the son of Rachel, the sister of their mother. Also [due to] the jealousy Leah and Rachel towards each other. As given that Leah and Rachel were Jacob's main wives, [their children] were jealous towards each other, which was not the case with the children of the maidservants. And that is why it is stated about Joseph: and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and the sons of Zilpah (Genesis 37:2). Behold it was from the angle of Leah and Rachel being sisters, and the jealousy of their children towards each other, that our ancestors went down to Egypt. And that is why [marrying] two sisters was subsequently forbidden. That is the reason for the need for the content of these stories: To make us aware of the reason for one of the commandments. And the Guide [for the Perplexed], Part III, Section 50 wrote something similar to this about the story of These are the kings, etc.. And it is possible that just like the law of sisters was changed, so too was marrying an aunt changed. And that is why Amram was permitted to marry his aunt. And our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded similarly to this concerning the prohibition of a sister, as it is stated about it:it is kindness (Leviticus 20:17). And our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 9:1), "What I permitted to Cain and Abel, etc." And that is why these sexual prohibitions were not yet forbidden during the time of the patriarchs until the time of the giving of the Torah when this law was innovated. And Ramban himself, may his memory be blessed, wrote like this concerning pillars, and these are his [words]: And the [prohibition of setting up a] pillar is a commandment that was innovated at a certain time, as they expounded (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 146) about that which is stated: in that the Lord, your God, hated it (Deuteronomy 16:22) — "He hated it, after it was beloved in the time of the forefathers." To here are his [words]. And since it is [the case] here, it is also [the case] there. For one should learn from what is revealed about what is hidden.