וְ֭אֵלַי דָּבָ֣ר יְגֻנָּ֑ב וַתִּקַּ֥ח אָ֝זְנִ֗י שֵׁ֣מֶץ מֶֽנְהֽוּ׃
Kepadaku pernah datang suatu firman secara diam-diam, dan telingaku menangkap sedikit saja darinya.
Sforno
'זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה, when the Torah in Nuimbers 8,7 had spoken of the need to sprinkle the waters of “chatat” on the Levites in order to purify them before they would begin their function newly assigned to them, our sages (Yuma 16) had already referred to the procedure as a chukkah, a statute, adding that these kinds of statute must not be questioned and probed as they are in the nature of a decree issued by G’d. The wise King Solomon, when mentioning that he had striven to unravel the wisdom in this legislation admitted that he had failed, that it was beyond him. (Kohelet 7,23). The thing which is most baffling in the red heifer legislation is that most who is ritually pure becomes ritually contaminated by direct contact with it, although the whole purpose of the red heifer, its ash, etc., is to purify the people who had been ritually contaminated prior to being sprinkled with spring water containing its ashes.
However, when we examine the entire commandment in detail we find that some of the people concerned with that red heifer from the moment it has been burned after having been slaughtered become ritually contaminated, i.e. the person burning its carcass, the person collecting its ashes, as well as the ones throwing the cedar wood as well as the one using the hyssop and crimson thread. into its burnt ashes. The same applies to all those either touching the remains or carrying them.
By contrast, the person performing the sprinkling with the mixture of the ash and water as well as the one sanctifying the location where the red heifer is to be burned and the one lighting the fire prior to burning the slaughtered red heifer are not contaminated by their activities.
One of the principal conditions concerning the red heifer is the requirement that it must not even have 2 hairs that are white or black. The symbolism of the colour red is supplied by the prophet Isaiah 1,18 who writes that even if your sins are as red as certain type or wool dyed red they can become white as snow under certain conditions of remorse.
Our sages considered this line so important that they used to tie a red string to the entrance of the Sanctuary when the scapegoat was thrown down on the Day of Atonement. This string would turn white as proof that the people’s sins had been forgiven. When this happened the people would rejoice for the remainder of that day, whereas when it failed to turn white they would be greatly saddened. (Yuma 67)
We must remember that seeing that in the words of Solomon (Proverbs 30,5) אמרת ה' צרופה, “everything G’d has said is absolutely pure, refined,” He has no doubt kept in mind that all extremes are looked upon with disfavour so that His legislation must represent what Maimonides called the “golden mean.” Solomon himself described any perversion as something deserving total failure. (compare Proverbs 28,18).
Furthermore, we must remember that when attempting to rectify something that has become bent out of shape by merely bending it in the opposite direction partially this will not restore it to its previous condition, but that it must be reversed completely in order to eventually be straight again. This is a principle applied by physicians in healing physical ailments, a principle described in Proverbs 20,30 as חבורות פצע תמריק ברע, “you must eradicate wounds and injuries by using (what appear to be) harmful remedies.” In other words, although the application of such remedies appears to run counter to the goal of preserving the golden mean, in such situations anything less drastic would never rectify the harm that had been caused by the injury. If similar means were to be applied to a completely healthy person they would, of course, be harmful instead of helpful.
A fifth consideration when contemplating the legislation in front of us is that the ash of the red heifer is effective in the context of ritual impurity only when the ritual impurity was caused by direct or indirect contact with a dead person’s body. Any other kind of ritual contamination, such as blood of menstruation, dead creeping things, and a number of other causes of such ritual defilements are not affected at all by the treatment here described.
We know that Torah by definition is designed to improve the quality of life of the people observing its laws. The Torah spells this out in Deuteronomy 32,47 by writing: כי היא חייכם, “for it is your very life.” Anyone deviating from the laws of the Torah either is on the way to spiritual and physical death or is already at the point where, although he is walking around he is legally considered as dead. This is what the sages meant when they said that “the wicked are considered as dead although to all intents and purposes masquerading as alive.” (B’rachot 18).
A sixth consideration we must bear in mind in connection with this statute is that our sages consider the cedar wood as a symbol of haughtiness, arrogance, whereas they consider the hyssop herb as a symbol of humility (Erchin 16). When the two are paired with the red wool known as תולעת שני, each alludes to something sinful. [the subject in the Talmud there is that a Torah scholar, though he needs to practice humility, nevertheless must maintain a certain amount of dignity so that people dealing with him do not get the impression that he is merely a “wimp,” a feeble ineffective personality. [Compare Sotah 5, discussing a saying by Rabbi Hunna son of Rabbi Joshua and the M’iri on that saying. Ed.] Excessive humility in a person charged with leadership is as counterproductive as arrogance in an individual who has not been called upon to serve as a model to anyone.
Our sages quote as an example of excessive humility by a person in public life the humility of Israel’s first King, King Sha-ul, who was punished by G’d for not displaying authority when it needed to be displayed and allowed the common people to get away with making insulting remarks about him without disciplining them. (compare Yuma 22, reference to Samuel I 10,27- 11,13). Even later on in his reign when he excused himself for not having killed the best livestock of the Amalekites, Sha-ul cited his “fear” of the people a the reason why he did not protest the people’s taking these as loot, something which had been forbidden (Samuel I 15,17). The prophet upraided him for behaving with his customary humility in public life, in the discharge of his duties as King.
Having said all this we come to the conclusion that although the whole red heifer legislation is a statute, a decree by G’d which must not be questioned, and we must not, G’d forbid, arrogate to ourselves to judge this legislation as suitable or not, seeing that everything G’d has said is pure and refined, it does teach some exceptionally valuable lessons even when looked at superficially as we have done. Although people like Moses and others on a high level of wisdom may have had an insight into the deeper meaning of this statute, we must learn what we can from what meets the eye.
An important lesson of value to every penitent for every sin committed appears to be the one that in trying to rectify one’s error, one must not content oneself to bend the “bent iron” back with the same amount of force it took to bend it out of shape in the first place, but one must strive to bend it beyond that so that in the future the likelihood of committing the same sin again will be reduced. {We encounter many בעלי תשובה in our daily lives who appear to relate to certain commandments with what appears to be exaggerated stringency. No doubt they have taken to heart what our author just explained about how to straighten out what has been bent out of shape. Ed.]
The red heifer legislation and its details appears among other objectives to indicate a path for the penitents how to make their repentance effective and lasting. The principal element is a complete reversal of the path in life which led him to commit the sins he became guilty of in the first place.
One of the lessons we learn from the details of this legislation is that whereas the method described in our portion is effective for the sinner who wishes to cleanse himself of his sins, i.e. to address himself to his problem by using extreme measures, such extremism when used by anyone other than a repentant sinner would have the opposite effect, i.e. it would make out the previously unblemished, pure, ritually clean person the very reverse, would contaminate him with ritual impurity (a euphemism for his sins.) The sinner is permitted, nay encouraged, commanded to use extreme measures in order to eventually achieve the balance represented by Maimonides’ ideal, the golden mean.
The Talmud Taanit, 11 in describing the procedure of the Nazir terminating his vow (Numbers 6,11) questions the line וכפר עליו מאשד חטא על הנפש, “he will thereby atone for the sin against his soul,” wanting to know what sin such a Nazir could possibly have been guilty of? The answer given is that during the period of his abstinence from wine the Nazir experienced great distress over having to abstain from wine etc. It is reasoned that if the Torah describes a person who causes himself unnecessary distress in one small area of life as a sinner, how much more so will it consider a person who abstains from all food and drink a sinner? [the paragraph commenced with the sage Sh’muel describing people who voluntarily practice fasts as sinners. Ed.]
Consider the fact that the instrument the Torah provides for ritually cleansing the person who had become defiled through contact with a deceased person as a mixture of spring water and ash from the red heifer. This mixture is composed of two extremes, i.e. residues of pure water and fire. Merging these two extremes appears (symbolically) is an excellent way of regaining the path known as the golden mean. Using this combination teaches us that this golden mean is what G’d considers as טהרה, ritual purity, as spelled out in the Torah’s description of the function of the Day of Atonement, מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו “you will become purified from all your sins before (against) the Lord,” (Leviticus 16,30).
We have to contemplate the fact that the Torah decrees that a person who has been defiled by contact with a dead person must not touch the Tabernacle of the Lord, (verse 13) and that he must not enter the airspace of the Tabernacle on pain of contaminating it, (verse 20). I believe the hidden meaning of this regulation is that anyone who has been in too close contact with the vanities of the terrestrial universe (to use the phraseology employed by Solomon in Kohelet again and again) automatically will confer some of the pollution represented by these vanities to sacred things he comes into contact with. He will therefore taint the צלם אלוקים, the Divine image in which he has been created. As a result, he must repair, remove such a taint in order to regain his former stature as an אדם.
Contact with the dead, results in an awareness of the transience of the lives of all of us, makes us aware of the negative aspects of our lives in this world; this is bound to leave a mark on our personality, one that may even border on considering life on earth as an exercise in futility, as indicated by Solomon when he speaks of such matters in Kohelet. The “world” Kohelet describes, i.e.תחת השמש, as if it exists only beneath the sun, a material world only, would indeed lead its inhabitants to such conclusions.
We who believe in a world מעבר לשמש, beyond that serviced by the sun, fortunately have something better to look forward to if we prepare ourselves for this. [I have added remarks of my own to the words of the author but I am certain that these remarks reflect his message. Ed.]
When the Torah speaks of וכל הבא אל האהל, “anyone entering the tent wherein the deceased is kept,” this may be understood allegorically as anyone coming under the influence of the הבלי העולם, the vanities of this terrestrial world, the ultimate uselessness of an existence premised on this being all there is to life.
Our chapter, when read as a simile, reminds the reader of what the task of an עם קדוש, a “holy nation” is, that it cannot be combined with the pursuit of merely secularly oriented pursuits, they are literally a “dead alley.” The expression משכן ה' in verse 13 would be the human body, whereas the expression מקדש ה' would refer to our soul. The author, following the view that gentile corpses do not confer ritual impurity when merely in the same airspace with a Jew, understands this halachah as reflecting the fact that only the body, the physical raw material is called upon to perform the commandments.
Seeing that even being in the same airspace as a dead person confers ritual impurity, it is not difficult to understand that people who engage in sprinkling the waters of the red cow and its ash on a person so contaminated, will in turn be affected by such contact with him, and will themselves absorb a degree of impurity, though much less severe, one that can be cleansed by immersion on a ritual bath the same evening.
People engaged in indirect procedures preparing the מי נדה will not become ritually impure as they were not in contact with the party to be purified at all. We see that there are many aspects of this commandment which yield valuable lessons for us the readers even if we do not penetrate to the innermost meaning of the legislation.
However, when we examine the entire commandment in detail we find that some of the people concerned with that red heifer from the moment it has been burned after having been slaughtered become ritually contaminated, i.e. the person burning its carcass, the person collecting its ashes, as well as the ones throwing the cedar wood as well as the one using the hyssop and crimson thread. into its burnt ashes. The same applies to all those either touching the remains or carrying them.
By contrast, the person performing the sprinkling with the mixture of the ash and water as well as the one sanctifying the location where the red heifer is to be burned and the one lighting the fire prior to burning the slaughtered red heifer are not contaminated by their activities.
One of the principal conditions concerning the red heifer is the requirement that it must not even have 2 hairs that are white or black. The symbolism of the colour red is supplied by the prophet Isaiah 1,18 who writes that even if your sins are as red as certain type or wool dyed red they can become white as snow under certain conditions of remorse.
Our sages considered this line so important that they used to tie a red string to the entrance of the Sanctuary when the scapegoat was thrown down on the Day of Atonement. This string would turn white as proof that the people’s sins had been forgiven. When this happened the people would rejoice for the remainder of that day, whereas when it failed to turn white they would be greatly saddened. (Yuma 67)
We must remember that seeing that in the words of Solomon (Proverbs 30,5) אמרת ה' צרופה, “everything G’d has said is absolutely pure, refined,” He has no doubt kept in mind that all extremes are looked upon with disfavour so that His legislation must represent what Maimonides called the “golden mean.” Solomon himself described any perversion as something deserving total failure. (compare Proverbs 28,18).
Furthermore, we must remember that when attempting to rectify something that has become bent out of shape by merely bending it in the opposite direction partially this will not restore it to its previous condition, but that it must be reversed completely in order to eventually be straight again. This is a principle applied by physicians in healing physical ailments, a principle described in Proverbs 20,30 as חבורות פצע תמריק ברע, “you must eradicate wounds and injuries by using (what appear to be) harmful remedies.” In other words, although the application of such remedies appears to run counter to the goal of preserving the golden mean, in such situations anything less drastic would never rectify the harm that had been caused by the injury. If similar means were to be applied to a completely healthy person they would, of course, be harmful instead of helpful.
A fifth consideration when contemplating the legislation in front of us is that the ash of the red heifer is effective in the context of ritual impurity only when the ritual impurity was caused by direct or indirect contact with a dead person’s body. Any other kind of ritual contamination, such as blood of menstruation, dead creeping things, and a number of other causes of such ritual defilements are not affected at all by the treatment here described.
We know that Torah by definition is designed to improve the quality of life of the people observing its laws. The Torah spells this out in Deuteronomy 32,47 by writing: כי היא חייכם, “for it is your very life.” Anyone deviating from the laws of the Torah either is on the way to spiritual and physical death or is already at the point where, although he is walking around he is legally considered as dead. This is what the sages meant when they said that “the wicked are considered as dead although to all intents and purposes masquerading as alive.” (B’rachot 18).
A sixth consideration we must bear in mind in connection with this statute is that our sages consider the cedar wood as a symbol of haughtiness, arrogance, whereas they consider the hyssop herb as a symbol of humility (Erchin 16). When the two are paired with the red wool known as תולעת שני, each alludes to something sinful. [the subject in the Talmud there is that a Torah scholar, though he needs to practice humility, nevertheless must maintain a certain amount of dignity so that people dealing with him do not get the impression that he is merely a “wimp,” a feeble ineffective personality. [Compare Sotah 5, discussing a saying by Rabbi Hunna son of Rabbi Joshua and the M’iri on that saying. Ed.] Excessive humility in a person charged with leadership is as counterproductive as arrogance in an individual who has not been called upon to serve as a model to anyone.
Our sages quote as an example of excessive humility by a person in public life the humility of Israel’s first King, King Sha-ul, who was punished by G’d for not displaying authority when it needed to be displayed and allowed the common people to get away with making insulting remarks about him without disciplining them. (compare Yuma 22, reference to Samuel I 10,27- 11,13). Even later on in his reign when he excused himself for not having killed the best livestock of the Amalekites, Sha-ul cited his “fear” of the people a the reason why he did not protest the people’s taking these as loot, something which had been forbidden (Samuel I 15,17). The prophet upraided him for behaving with his customary humility in public life, in the discharge of his duties as King.
Having said all this we come to the conclusion that although the whole red heifer legislation is a statute, a decree by G’d which must not be questioned, and we must not, G’d forbid, arrogate to ourselves to judge this legislation as suitable or not, seeing that everything G’d has said is pure and refined, it does teach some exceptionally valuable lessons even when looked at superficially as we have done. Although people like Moses and others on a high level of wisdom may have had an insight into the deeper meaning of this statute, we must learn what we can from what meets the eye.
An important lesson of value to every penitent for every sin committed appears to be the one that in trying to rectify one’s error, one must not content oneself to bend the “bent iron” back with the same amount of force it took to bend it out of shape in the first place, but one must strive to bend it beyond that so that in the future the likelihood of committing the same sin again will be reduced. {We encounter many בעלי תשובה in our daily lives who appear to relate to certain commandments with what appears to be exaggerated stringency. No doubt they have taken to heart what our author just explained about how to straighten out what has been bent out of shape. Ed.]
The red heifer legislation and its details appears among other objectives to indicate a path for the penitents how to make their repentance effective and lasting. The principal element is a complete reversal of the path in life which led him to commit the sins he became guilty of in the first place.
One of the lessons we learn from the details of this legislation is that whereas the method described in our portion is effective for the sinner who wishes to cleanse himself of his sins, i.e. to address himself to his problem by using extreme measures, such extremism when used by anyone other than a repentant sinner would have the opposite effect, i.e. it would make out the previously unblemished, pure, ritually clean person the very reverse, would contaminate him with ritual impurity (a euphemism for his sins.) The sinner is permitted, nay encouraged, commanded to use extreme measures in order to eventually achieve the balance represented by Maimonides’ ideal, the golden mean.
The Talmud Taanit, 11 in describing the procedure of the Nazir terminating his vow (Numbers 6,11) questions the line וכפר עליו מאשד חטא על הנפש, “he will thereby atone for the sin against his soul,” wanting to know what sin such a Nazir could possibly have been guilty of? The answer given is that during the period of his abstinence from wine the Nazir experienced great distress over having to abstain from wine etc. It is reasoned that if the Torah describes a person who causes himself unnecessary distress in one small area of life as a sinner, how much more so will it consider a person who abstains from all food and drink a sinner? [the paragraph commenced with the sage Sh’muel describing people who voluntarily practice fasts as sinners. Ed.]
Consider the fact that the instrument the Torah provides for ritually cleansing the person who had become defiled through contact with a deceased person as a mixture of spring water and ash from the red heifer. This mixture is composed of two extremes, i.e. residues of pure water and fire. Merging these two extremes appears (symbolically) is an excellent way of regaining the path known as the golden mean. Using this combination teaches us that this golden mean is what G’d considers as טהרה, ritual purity, as spelled out in the Torah’s description of the function of the Day of Atonement, מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו “you will become purified from all your sins before (against) the Lord,” (Leviticus 16,30).
We have to contemplate the fact that the Torah decrees that a person who has been defiled by contact with a dead person must not touch the Tabernacle of the Lord, (verse 13) and that he must not enter the airspace of the Tabernacle on pain of contaminating it, (verse 20). I believe the hidden meaning of this regulation is that anyone who has been in too close contact with the vanities of the terrestrial universe (to use the phraseology employed by Solomon in Kohelet again and again) automatically will confer some of the pollution represented by these vanities to sacred things he comes into contact with. He will therefore taint the צלם אלוקים, the Divine image in which he has been created. As a result, he must repair, remove such a taint in order to regain his former stature as an אדם.
Contact with the dead, results in an awareness of the transience of the lives of all of us, makes us aware of the negative aspects of our lives in this world; this is bound to leave a mark on our personality, one that may even border on considering life on earth as an exercise in futility, as indicated by Solomon when he speaks of such matters in Kohelet. The “world” Kohelet describes, i.e.תחת השמש, as if it exists only beneath the sun, a material world only, would indeed lead its inhabitants to such conclusions.
We who believe in a world מעבר לשמש, beyond that serviced by the sun, fortunately have something better to look forward to if we prepare ourselves for this. [I have added remarks of my own to the words of the author but I am certain that these remarks reflect his message. Ed.]
When the Torah speaks of וכל הבא אל האהל, “anyone entering the tent wherein the deceased is kept,” this may be understood allegorically as anyone coming under the influence of the הבלי העולם, the vanities of this terrestrial world, the ultimate uselessness of an existence premised on this being all there is to life.
Our chapter, when read as a simile, reminds the reader of what the task of an עם קדוש, a “holy nation” is, that it cannot be combined with the pursuit of merely secularly oriented pursuits, they are literally a “dead alley.” The expression משכן ה' in verse 13 would be the human body, whereas the expression מקדש ה' would refer to our soul. The author, following the view that gentile corpses do not confer ritual impurity when merely in the same airspace with a Jew, understands this halachah as reflecting the fact that only the body, the physical raw material is called upon to perform the commandments.
Seeing that even being in the same airspace as a dead person confers ritual impurity, it is not difficult to understand that people who engage in sprinkling the waters of the red cow and its ash on a person so contaminated, will in turn be affected by such contact with him, and will themselves absorb a degree of impurity, though much less severe, one that can be cleansed by immersion on a ritual bath the same evening.
People engaged in indirect procedures preparing the מי נדה will not become ritually impure as they were not in contact with the party to be purified at all. We see that there are many aspects of this commandment which yield valuable lessons for us the readers even if we do not penetrate to the innermost meaning of the legislation.
Abarbanel
You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery, etc. All the people witnessed the sounds: They said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14) - How were the Ten Commandments given? Five on one tablet and five on the other. It is written, "I am the Lord your God," and opposite it, "You shall not murder" - since spilling blood is tantamount to diminishing the likeness [of God]. It is written, "There shall not be unto you [any other gods]," and opposite it, "You shall not commit adultery," saying that anyone worshipping idolatry is tantamount to adultery against the Omnipresent. It is written, "You shall not take [the name of the Lord your God in vain]," and opposite it, "You shall not steal," saying that anyone who steals - in the end - comes to swear in vain, as it is written (Jeremiah 7:9), "Shall one steal, murder, commit adultery, [swear falsely]." And it is written (Hosea 4:2), "swearing, lying, [murdering, stealing]." It is written, "Remember the Sabbath day," and opposite it, "You shall not testify falsely against your fellow" - Scripture is saying that anyone who desecrates the Sabbath testifies before Him who spoke and brought the world into being that He did not rest on the seventh day; and anyone who keeps the Sabbath thereby testifies about [God's] creation of the world, as it is written (Isaiah 43:10), "You are My witnesses, says the Lord." It is written, "Honor your father [and your mother]," and opposite it, "You shall not covet," saying that anyone who covets - in the end - comes to beget a son who curses his father, and honors one who is not his father. This is why the Ten Commandments were given, five on one tablet and five on the other, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 5:19), "The Lord spoke those words, etc. and He wrote them [on two tablets of stone]." These are the words of Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel. But the sages say: Ten were on one tablet and ten on the other, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 5:19) "The Lord spoke those words, etc. and He wrote them [on two tablets of stone]." To here [are the words of the Mekhilta]. This is the approach of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, about the organization of these Commandments and their need. However, according to what I explained in the verses, the first five were on one tablet due to their relating to matters of divinity; and the last five on [another] tablet due to their relating to [that which] is between a man and his fellow - according to the opinion of Rabbi Chanina, which is the more logical. And the tablets were therefore two. For if all of the Commandments were on each one of the tablets, there would not have been a need for two tablets, but rather [only] one. And because of this, the name, Lord, and the name, God, is mentioned in each of the five first Commandments that were on one tablet, to indicate that they were commandments about divinity. However, in that the last fives ones are all about humanity - between a man and his fellow - none of the holy names [of God] are mentioned in any of them. And this is that which the Sages, may their memory be blessed, intended in their saying (Shemot Rabbah 80:47): The two tablets correspond to the heavens and the earth, to a groom and a bride, to two friends and to two worlds. As through this, they wanted to distinguish between the two tablets, according to what I have explained. And behold, there is no doubt that there are other commandments included in the Commandment, "You shall not murder" - as I mentioned. For murder is stated about the killing of a soul - like (Numbers 35:2) "and the blood-avenger [murders] the murderer"; but it is also stated about blows and wounds - like (Psalms 42:11), "Murdering my bones"; (Hosea 6:9), "murdering on the way to Shekhem"; (Psalms 62:4), "all of you murder him like a leaning wall." For it compared someone hit and "murdered" to a leaning wall, that is ready to fall but has not yet fallen. And the word, murderer, is also stated about one who causes death, even though he does not kill with his hands (actively) - like (Judges 20:4) "the husband of the murdered woman." And they slept with her and did not kill her, but she was murdered as a result of [their actions]. And according to all of these usages, it is fit to understand, "You shall not murder," about one who kills a soul and one who strikes his fellow [with] 'bruises and wounds, that are repayment for evil.' And that one not go talebearing is also included in this Commandment, for he causes the [potential] murder. And also included in this Commandment is that one not refrain from charity to the poor, and [from] the commandment of "and your brother shall live with you" (Leviticus 25:36) - as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:9), "so that you are mean to your needy brother and give him nothing, and he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will incur sin." For one who withholds charity is killing the souls of the poor and the destitute. And also included in this negative commandment is the release of Hebrew slaves on the seventh year, and of the Hebrew maidservant, as is coming up. For if he detains them more than is the law; it is like killing and negating them from the world. And also included in this Commandment - according to the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed - is one who whitens the face of (embarrasses) his fellow about a blemish that he or his ancestors had; and also one who infringes upon his fellow's trade, one who prevents his sustenance from him and one who competes (unfairly); and the one who slanders and the one who hands over his fellow - all of these are included in "You shall not murder." And all forbidden sexual relations and all types of adulterers are included in the Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" - as was mentioned by Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra. For even though adultery (niuf) is said specifically about one who sleeps with a married woman, see that it is also stated generally about all other sexual prohibitions - and as it stated (Job 24:15), "The eyes of the adulterer watch for twilight, saying, 'No eye will see me.'" And there are also many commandments included in the Commandment, "You shall not steal.” For the word, thief, is sometimes stated about one who kidnaps one of his brothers - like the words [of the Sages,] may their memory be blessed - and it also stated about one who takes his fellow's money without his knowledge, as it is written (Exodus 22:1), "If the thief is seized while tunneling"; and it is stated about withholding a pledge and exploitation, since it is taking a person's property against his will. Hence it is stated (Leviticus 5:21), "or by holding a pledge, or through robbery, or by defrauding his kinsman" - as it all called holding a pledge, which is theft. And the word, theft, is also stated about fraud and deceit - like (Genesis 31:20), "And Jacob stole Lavan's heart"; (Job 4:12) "A stolen word came to me." And from this angle and aspect, even oppressive words are called theft. And according to these usages, the Commandment of "Do not steal" includes kidnapping, stealing money or vessels, robbery and exploitation; the commandment of "a man shall not oppress his brother" (Leviticus 25:14), and "Stay away from a false thing (Exodus 23:7); all matters of theft and fooling people; the commandment of "You shall not render an unfair decision" (Leviticus 19:15) with size, weight and length; and all of the other commandments I mentioned above. And as for why the Commandment of "You shall not commit adultery," came between "You shall not murder" and "You shall not steal," it is surely because a wife is, from one aspect, like a man's body - bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh - but from another aspect, she is like his acquisitions and his money. Hence this Commandment is stated between "You shall not murder" and "You shall not steal." And once it warned a man not to injure his fellow with bad deeds - not towards his wife, his body or his money - it warned him also not to injure him with the words of his lips. And that is its stating, "You shall not testify falsely against your fellow." And besides this prohibition that a person not testify falsely; also included in it is one who mocks his fellow, one who speaks evil speech, one who talebears, one who whitens the face of his fellow in public and that which is similar to them from the commandments that I mentioned. And after this, it warned that a man not injure his fellow with his thoughts. And that is, "You shall not covet." And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra explained that this Commandment is not only in thought, since coveting is also stated about robbing something desirable, as it is stated (Micah 2:2), "They covet fields, and rob." And, if so, it is warning with this about robbing that is a continuation of the act of coveting, and also about the internal coveting itself. And the great rabbi, Maimonides, agreed with this in the Book of Damages, Laws of Robbery and Lost Property 5 - that one does not transgress the negative commandment of "You shall not covet" until he takes an object that he coveted - which is coveting with an action. But desire (Deuteronomy 5:18) is only in the heart. And there are some of the decisors that disagree with him about this. And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra put effort into explaining that a person has the power to accustom himself to uphold this prohibition of "You shall not covet," even in the heart. And that is when a person accustoms himself to be satisfied with what he has, like he accustoms himself to the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations and that which is similar to it. And it mentioned the desired things according to [the order of] a man's need for them and that which it is fit for a man to expend efforts to acquire in his world. And that is why it first mentioned the coveting of a house; and then a wife; and then a slave and maidservant; and then an ox and donkey, that are animals that do not speak. And Scripture grouped the other things that are not so necessary when it stated, "and anything that is your fellow's." But in Mishneh Torah (Deuteronomy), it mentioned them according to the severity of the sin and the evil. For the most evil coveting is the coveting of a man for his fellow's wife, like the desire of David for Bathsheba. And after it in evil is the coveting of a man for his fellow's house, and afterwards the field. For even if a man does not live in it - like he lives in his house - it is surely the place of his nourishment and the inheritance of his ancestors, as it was in the matter of Ahab with the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. And after the field, it mentioned the slave and the maidservant that are not as esteemed as the field; and afterwards, the ox and donkey, which do not speak; and after them, it wanted to group all of the movable property that is not living - "and everything that is your fellow's." And I have already mentioned that these last five Commandments came with extreme terseness, because they are things that the human intellect understands, and because the first three of them were from the commandments that the Children of Noah were [already] commanded. Hence it does not say the word, "your fellow" here - meaning to say, "You shall not murder your fellow, you shall not commit adultery with your fellow's wife; you shall not steal from that which is your fellow's." As the whole world was already prohibited about [these things], whereas the Israelites were [deemed] fellows from the angle of the Torah which they received and by which they were united. However, with the commandment, "You shall not testify," it stated, "Your fellow" - and likewise with "You shall not covet." For the Holy One, blessed be He, added these two commandments to command them now to the Israelites, given that they were beloved fellows from once they received the Torah. And from that angle, and since they were the Children of Jacob - the seed of the blessed one of the Lord, it was fit that they not perpetrate injustice and that there not be expressions of deceit and bad desires in their mouths and hearts. And I also say that a double prohibition come upon coveting - in that it states, "You shall not covet your fellow's house; you shall not covet your fellow's wife" - because, as mentioned by the Medini (Aristotle), love and desire [of something] can be [because it is] useful or [because it is] enjoyable. And since they are different things, the negative commandment mentions [coveting] twice, as if it were saying, do not covet something wrong from that which is useful like a house or a field, and do not covet something wrong from that which is enjoyable like a woman. And with this, the second question is resolved. And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra already mentioned a different opinion about these Ten Commandments - that they are corresponding to the heavenly spheres, and he related each one to its sphere; and he felt that it was about this that it stated (Exodus 20:19), "you saw that I spoke to you from the heavens." But because these are tangible things, 'my soul is bewildered by them.' Hence I did not mention them here.
Rashi
גם את הדבר הזה THIS THING ALSO — that My Shechinah shall not rest henceforth upon the other nations of the world, אעשה I WILL DO. And thus He did, for the prophetical words of Balaam (the heathen prophet) were not uttered by reason of the Shechinah resting upon him, but, as Scripture describes it, (Numbers 24:4) “[he saw the vision of the Almighty] fallen, but with eyes uncovered” (i. e. whilst fallen into a sleep his mental eyes were open and he saw in a dream what the Almighty was to reveal unto him) in a state of mind similar to that described by Job (Job 4:12) “a word was by stealth conveyed (יגנב) to me” — they (the heathen prophets) used to hear God’s message through a medium.