אֲנִ֥י צִוֵּ֖יתִי לִמְקֻדָּשָׁ֑י גַּ֣ם קָרָ֤אתִי גִבּוֹרַי֙ לְאַפִּ֔י עַלִּיזֵ֖י גַּאֲוָתִֽי׃
J’ai commandé ma troupe sainte, j’ai appelé, pour servir ma colère, mes guerriers, champions enthousiastes de ma grandeur.
Rashi
על נס means [SET IT] UPON A POLE which is termed perche in O. F. Similar is, (Isaiah 30:17) “And like a polo (banner) upon the hill”; (Isaiah 49:22) “I will lift up my pole (banner)”; (Isaiah 13:3) “Lift up a banner." Because it is lofty so that it can serve as a sign and as evidence of something it is called נס, something raised on high (cf. Rashi on Exodus 20:17).
Ramban
V’KIDASHTAM’ TODAY AND TOMORROW. Rashi explained: “V’kidashtam means ‘and thou shalt prepare them.’” And so is the opinion of Onkelos. A similar usage is found in the verse: I have commanded ‘lim’kudashai’ (“those who are prepared for Me” or “My consecrated ones”),200Isaiah 13:3. and also in the following verse: ‘hithkadshu’ (prepare yourselves) for tomorrow.201Numbers 11:18. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it as meaning that they should bathe themselves in water. But if so, what is the sense of today and tomorrow when bathing was required only once? The correct interpretation is that they should sanctify themselves by separating from their wives, and from all uncleanness, for he who guards [himself] from being defiled by uncleanness is called ‘m’kudash’ (consecrated), just as it is said with reference to the priests, There shall none defile himself for the dead;202Leviticus 21:1. They shall be holy unto their G-d.203Ibid., Verse 6. And it is further written, because the priests had not sanctified themselves,204II Chronicles 30:3. that is to say, they had not purified themselves. Similarly, And David answered the priest, and said unto him: To a certainty women have been kept from us about these three days; when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy.205I Samuel 21:6. And it is known that [before the Giving of the Torah the people] bathed themselves in water, this being derived logically from the required washing of garments.206In other words, it is not necessary to explain v’kidashtam, as Ibn Ezra did, as meaning that they shall bathe themselves in water, for that requirement can be derived from the express commandment, and let them wash their garments (here, Verse 10). Hence, v’kidashtam must mean as Ramban explained it. The reasoning for the requirement of bathing or immersion is found here in the Mechilta: “And let them wash their garments. And whence do we know that immersion was also required? I reason as follows: If immersion is required in cases where washing of garments is not required (see Leviticus 15:16), is it not logical that immersion is also required in this case where washing of garments is expressly mentioned?” And so did the Rabbis say in the Mechilta:207Mechilta, ibid. “There is no case where washing of garments is required in the Torah without the requirement of immersion [of one’s body].”
Ramban
THERE SHALL BE NO ‘K’DEISHAH’ OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL — “one who is devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse. NOR SHALL THERE BE A ‘KADEISH’ OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL — one who is always prepared for pederasty.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, if this prohibition constitutes an admonition against the woman so engaged and warns her against being “devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse,” then an unmarried woman who has [illicit] intercourse with a man unpremeditatedly and secretly is not among those guilty of transgressing a negative commandment! So also in the matter of the kadeish, why did Rashi mention that he is devoted to “and always prepared” [for such sin] — even one who permits himself to be so abused in an innermost chamber is guilty of extirpation [if there are no witnesses] and death by the court [if there are witnesses]! Moreover, it would have been proper for Scripture to state, “There shall not be among you a k’deishah, nor shall there be among you a kadeish,” for the expressions of the daughters of Israel and of the sons of Israel make it appear that the verse discusses another nation!
It appears to me concerning this prohibition that it constitutes an admonition addressed to the members of the court that they should not permit one of the daughters of Israel to sit in public view at the crossroads for the purpose of illicit intercourse, or prepare herself a tent of prostitution as is customary in foreign lands where they sit at the door with timbrels and harps, similar to what is written, Take a harp, go about the city, thou harlot long forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.288Isaiah 23:16. And similarly Scripture warns the court concerning a kadeish. And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, even if he should lie with women in a tent which he prepared himself for such illicit relations or that he should sit in public view at the crossroads [on the lookout for such women], he warned the court [against permitting such activities].
It appears to me that such is the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “A woman of the daughters of Israel shall not become the wife of a slave, and no man of Israel shall marry a bondwoman”].289Thus it is clear that Rashi’s interpretation: “a k’deishah is one who is devoted to, and always ready for illicit intercourse” is different from that of Onkelos. The same is with regard to a kadeish. But he [Onkelos] combined with this prohibition the matter of a slave and bondwoman who live with Israelites in [common law] marriage, because everyone knows concerning this slave who married the daughter of an Israelite that his betrothal of her is invalid and yet she remains with him like a wife with her husband, and if so she is a k’deishah in broad daylight.
Now, I have seen in the Sifre the following text:290Sifre, Ki Theitzei 260. “There shall be no ‘k’deishah’ of the daughters of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Now, I could have reasoned: if the k’deishah [commits] a minor transgression [seeing that the punishment for violation of this prohibition is stripes] yet you are warned against it in Israel, is it not logical that [the crime of] the stringent kadeish [which is punished] by extirpation and death by the court, [as explained above] be forbidden in Israel! [Why then was it necessary to state, nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel?] Or vice versa: if the kadeish commits a stringent [crime, yet] you are not admonished against it among the nations, is it not logical that you should not be admonished against the minor k’deishah with respect to the nations etc.”291In other words, the Sifre is stating that both admonitions were necessary. The minor transgression of k’deishah we could not have derived from the stricter kadeish, and the exclusion of the nations regarding the prohibition of kadeish we could not have derived from the same exclusion regarding the lighter prohibition of k’deishah. Hence both admonitions had to be stated. From this text of the Sifre it would appear that the interpretation of the Rabbis does not agree with that of Onkelos, for according to his rendition there is nothing stricter about the kadeish than the k’deishah [since the prohibition against a slave marrying a Jewish woman is of equal stringency to that of a Jewish man marrying a bondwoman]. Moreover, what does the Sifre mean by, “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations” [according to Onkelos’ interpretation]? Similarly, if the interpretation [of the Sifre] of the term kadeish were to have been “the male who is the subject of pederasty” as in the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael in Tractate Sanhedrin,292Sanhedrin 54b. then in that case too, the Sifre could not have said “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations,” for he who permits himself to be so abused by a heathen is liable to stoning!
Rather, it appears that the opinion of the master of this Beraitha is as we have mentioned. Scripture warns the court that a woman may not stand at the crossroads for illicit intercourse, for there she will prostitute herself with those who are forbidden to her, relatives and strangers, for they cover their faces in order to have illicit relations even with their brothers and relatives, this being the sense of what Scripture states, When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face293Genesis 38:15. Similarly he warns the court against him who is ready to be abused by males, similar to what is written, And there was also sodomy in the Land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations.294I Kings 14:24. Now, aside from the admonition against those who commit the sin, he warns the court here that they should not permit a sodomite to stand on the road [ready for such abuse], as is known of them in the land of Egypt that they stand on the road with covered faces like women to do this abominable act. Now the Rabbis interpreted in this Beraitha [i.e., the Sifre quoted above] that we are not admonished concerning others except for ourselves if they do so with one another, for only in matters of idolatry are we admonished with respect to the nations.
The terms kadeish and k’deishah, in the opinion of the commentators,295Ibn Ezra, here and R’dak, in Sefer Hasharashim, root kadeish. are an expression of readiness, for they found this usage in the verse, I have commanded ‘lim’kudashai’ (My devoted ones).296Isaiah 13:3. So also, ‘hikdish’ (He hath prepared) His guests;297Zephaniah 1:7. ‘kadshu’ (prepare ye) war against her.298Jeremiah 6:4. And in my opinion these are all expressions of “holiness” [consecration], for he who separates himself from illicit sexual relations is called “holy,” just as it is said, They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman sent away from her husband, for he is ‘holy’ unto his G-d.299Leviticus 21:7. Thus the woman who guards herself from forbidden relations and lewdness is called k’doshah (holy), while she who separates herself from holiness and becomes defiled with illicit sexual relations is called k’deishah. This is comparable to the usage customary in the [Sacred] Language [to use the same root-letters to express the negative as well as the positive], as for example: and all mine increase ‘th’shareish’ (it would root out);300Job 31:12. Now, the word shoresh means “a root,” and here it means the opposite: “uproot.” ‘v’dishnu’ (and they shall take away the ashes) from the altar.301Numbers 4:13. Here too the word deshen (ashes) is used to indicate the opposite: “to take away the ashes.” For the known harlot, the defiled one of name and full of tumult302Ezekiel 22:5. is separated from all holiness. This name [k’deishah] applies to her only because she is always ready for this abomination, for she has no moment for propriety and holiness at all. And the expression ‘hikdish’ His guests297Zephaniah 1:7. is a figurative expression, for he who makes a feast consecrates his guests and cleanses them so that they should not defile the table and the bread, as it is said, he is unclean; surely he is not clean.303I Samuel 20:26. So also ‘kadshu’ war against her298Jeremiah 6:4. means that they should cleanse themselves, like one who cleanses his guests in order that scholarly people [who are meticulous in observing the laws of purity] should not separate themselves from them.
It appears to me concerning this prohibition that it constitutes an admonition addressed to the members of the court that they should not permit one of the daughters of Israel to sit in public view at the crossroads for the purpose of illicit intercourse, or prepare herself a tent of prostitution as is customary in foreign lands where they sit at the door with timbrels and harps, similar to what is written, Take a harp, go about the city, thou harlot long forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.288Isaiah 23:16. And similarly Scripture warns the court concerning a kadeish. And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, even if he should lie with women in a tent which he prepared himself for such illicit relations or that he should sit in public view at the crossroads [on the lookout for such women], he warned the court [against permitting such activities].
It appears to me that such is the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “A woman of the daughters of Israel shall not become the wife of a slave, and no man of Israel shall marry a bondwoman”].289Thus it is clear that Rashi’s interpretation: “a k’deishah is one who is devoted to, and always ready for illicit intercourse” is different from that of Onkelos. The same is with regard to a kadeish. But he [Onkelos] combined with this prohibition the matter of a slave and bondwoman who live with Israelites in [common law] marriage, because everyone knows concerning this slave who married the daughter of an Israelite that his betrothal of her is invalid and yet she remains with him like a wife with her husband, and if so she is a k’deishah in broad daylight.
Now, I have seen in the Sifre the following text:290Sifre, Ki Theitzei 260. “There shall be no ‘k’deishah’ of the daughters of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Now, I could have reasoned: if the k’deishah [commits] a minor transgression [seeing that the punishment for violation of this prohibition is stripes] yet you are warned against it in Israel, is it not logical that [the crime of] the stringent kadeish [which is punished] by extirpation and death by the court, [as explained above] be forbidden in Israel! [Why then was it necessary to state, nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel?] Or vice versa: if the kadeish commits a stringent [crime, yet] you are not admonished against it among the nations, is it not logical that you should not be admonished against the minor k’deishah with respect to the nations etc.”291In other words, the Sifre is stating that both admonitions were necessary. The minor transgression of k’deishah we could not have derived from the stricter kadeish, and the exclusion of the nations regarding the prohibition of kadeish we could not have derived from the same exclusion regarding the lighter prohibition of k’deishah. Hence both admonitions had to be stated. From this text of the Sifre it would appear that the interpretation of the Rabbis does not agree with that of Onkelos, for according to his rendition there is nothing stricter about the kadeish than the k’deishah [since the prohibition against a slave marrying a Jewish woman is of equal stringency to that of a Jewish man marrying a bondwoman]. Moreover, what does the Sifre mean by, “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations” [according to Onkelos’ interpretation]? Similarly, if the interpretation [of the Sifre] of the term kadeish were to have been “the male who is the subject of pederasty” as in the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael in Tractate Sanhedrin,292Sanhedrin 54b. then in that case too, the Sifre could not have said “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations,” for he who permits himself to be so abused by a heathen is liable to stoning!
Rather, it appears that the opinion of the master of this Beraitha is as we have mentioned. Scripture warns the court that a woman may not stand at the crossroads for illicit intercourse, for there she will prostitute herself with those who are forbidden to her, relatives and strangers, for they cover their faces in order to have illicit relations even with their brothers and relatives, this being the sense of what Scripture states, When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face293Genesis 38:15. Similarly he warns the court against him who is ready to be abused by males, similar to what is written, And there was also sodomy in the Land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations.294I Kings 14:24. Now, aside from the admonition against those who commit the sin, he warns the court here that they should not permit a sodomite to stand on the road [ready for such abuse], as is known of them in the land of Egypt that they stand on the road with covered faces like women to do this abominable act. Now the Rabbis interpreted in this Beraitha [i.e., the Sifre quoted above] that we are not admonished concerning others except for ourselves if they do so with one another, for only in matters of idolatry are we admonished with respect to the nations.
The terms kadeish and k’deishah, in the opinion of the commentators,295Ibn Ezra, here and R’dak, in Sefer Hasharashim, root kadeish. are an expression of readiness, for they found this usage in the verse, I have commanded ‘lim’kudashai’ (My devoted ones).296Isaiah 13:3. So also, ‘hikdish’ (He hath prepared) His guests;297Zephaniah 1:7. ‘kadshu’ (prepare ye) war against her.298Jeremiah 6:4. And in my opinion these are all expressions of “holiness” [consecration], for he who separates himself from illicit sexual relations is called “holy,” just as it is said, They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman sent away from her husband, for he is ‘holy’ unto his G-d.299Leviticus 21:7. Thus the woman who guards herself from forbidden relations and lewdness is called k’doshah (holy), while she who separates herself from holiness and becomes defiled with illicit sexual relations is called k’deishah. This is comparable to the usage customary in the [Sacred] Language [to use the same root-letters to express the negative as well as the positive], as for example: and all mine increase ‘th’shareish’ (it would root out);300Job 31:12. Now, the word shoresh means “a root,” and here it means the opposite: “uproot.” ‘v’dishnu’ (and they shall take away the ashes) from the altar.301Numbers 4:13. Here too the word deshen (ashes) is used to indicate the opposite: “to take away the ashes.” For the known harlot, the defiled one of name and full of tumult302Ezekiel 22:5. is separated from all holiness. This name [k’deishah] applies to her only because she is always ready for this abomination, for she has no moment for propriety and holiness at all. And the expression ‘hikdish’ His guests297Zephaniah 1:7. is a figurative expression, for he who makes a feast consecrates his guests and cleanses them so that they should not defile the table and the bread, as it is said, he is unclean; surely he is not clean.303I Samuel 20:26. So also ‘kadshu’ war against her298Jeremiah 6:4. means that they should cleanse themselves, like one who cleanses his guests in order that scholarly people [who are meticulous in observing the laws of purity] should not separate themselves from them.