וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־דֹּ֣דָת֔וֹ עֶרְוַ֥ת דֹּד֖וֹ גִּלָּ֑ה חֶטְאָ֥ם יִשָּׂ֖אוּ עֲרִירִ֥ים יָמֻֽתוּ׃
Seorang laki-laki yang tidur dengan istri pamannya telah menyingkapkan aurat pamannya; mereka harus menanggung dosa mereka, mereka akan mati tanpa anak.
Ramban
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].
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].
Ramban
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].
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].
Haamek Sheilah
This explanation, [that the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds disagree in the interpretation of the Toras Kohanim], resolves the objections to Rashi’s definition of kares. [Rashi is of the opinion that] throughout the Torah [kares] is synonymous with the word, ariri, which means [the Divinely-imposed punishment of] dying childless, while only the phrase “death by the hands of Heaven” refers to one dying at a younger age, but [with] surviving children.20Tosafos in Yevamos 2a, “Eshes ahiv me-immo,” writes that the interpretation of the word kares depends on the context. Tosafos has to take this position because he believes that both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds have the same version of the Toras Kohanim, which includes the wife of the maternal half-brother among the fifteen categories of women. His argument is based on the following logic: Tractate Yevamos 20a states that a woman is exempt from yibbum only if her union with the brother of the deceased involves the punishment of karesa. Yet we see from the Jerusalem Talmud that a wife of a brother from the same mother is exempt from yibbum, even though they are exempt from karesa.
We see that according to the Jerusalem Talmud, only the wife of a paternal brother is liable to kares, not the wife of a maternal brother. Why, then, is the wife of a maternal brother exempt from yibbum? Tosafos resolves the question by positing a difference in meaning between kares and ariri. Ariri means dying childless, whereas kares means that one dies young, yet still has children. The Toras Kohanim is stating, according to Tosafos’ view, that the wife of a maternal brother is excluded only from the punishment of ariri, dying childless. However, she is subject to the punishment of kares, premature death. Tosafos’ question is: since the Jerusalem Talmud and Toras Kohanim rule [according to his understanding] that the wife of the maternal half-brother is exempt from ariri, why does such a woman exempt herself and her co-wives from yibbum and halitzah? [A woman is exempt from yibbum only if her union with the brother of the deceased involves excision, and according to Rashi, exemption from ariri includes exemption from all types of excision. Therefore, Tosafos argues that one must conclude that there are two types of excision: kares, dying a premature death, and ariri, dying childless. While the wife of the maternal half-brother is exempt from ariri, she is still subject to kares.] However, according to how we explained [that the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud disagree whether the Toras Kohanim includes the wife of the maternal half-brother in the fifteen types of women, we will demonstrate] that they must also disagree [in the definition of kares and ariri]. For according to the Babylonian Talmud, as stated in Yevamos 55a, the reason for the Torah to state [in Lev. 20:20, concerning the forbidden relationship with one’s aunt], “they shall die childless,” and the necessity for the verse [in Lev. 20:21, regarding the relationship of his brother’s wife], “shall be childless,” teaches us the extent to which the punishment of kares is meted out by God; [not only the children born from the time of the transgression and onward will die, but those born before the transgression will also die]. For according to the Babylonian Talmud, whatever punishment is written regarding one ervah must be applied to any other ervah; the reason for stating “childless” is only in order to define kares.21According to the Babylonian Talmud, various types of ervah can be derived from one another, so why is there a need to state the punishment of kares in the verses describing the forbidden relationships with one’s aunt and brother’s wife, since it is derivable without these verses? The Talmud therefore concludes that it is defining how kares is carried out by God. Thus, Tosafos’s question has now been well answered, for according to our Mishnah, the wife of one’s maternal half-brother has not been excluded [from kares], whereas according to the Toras Kohanim, this woman is not included at all within the fifteen types, [and is thus exempt from the punishment of kares].22Tosafos’s difficulty is based on his understanding that the Babylonian Talmud agrees that the Toras Kohanim exempts the wife of the maternal half-brother from yibbum and halitzah.
We see that according to the Jerusalem Talmud, only the wife of a paternal brother is liable to kares, not the wife of a maternal brother. Why, then, is the wife of a maternal brother exempt from yibbum? Tosafos resolves the question by positing a difference in meaning between kares and ariri. Ariri means dying childless, whereas kares means that one dies young, yet still has children. The Toras Kohanim is stating, according to Tosafos’ view, that the wife of a maternal brother is excluded only from the punishment of ariri, dying childless. However, she is subject to the punishment of kares, premature death. Tosafos’ question is: since the Jerusalem Talmud and Toras Kohanim rule [according to his understanding] that the wife of the maternal half-brother is exempt from ariri, why does such a woman exempt herself and her co-wives from yibbum and halitzah? [A woman is exempt from yibbum only if her union with the brother of the deceased involves excision, and according to Rashi, exemption from ariri includes exemption from all types of excision. Therefore, Tosafos argues that one must conclude that there are two types of excision: kares, dying a premature death, and ariri, dying childless. While the wife of the maternal half-brother is exempt from ariri, she is still subject to kares.] However, according to how we explained [that the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud disagree whether the Toras Kohanim includes the wife of the maternal half-brother in the fifteen types of women, we will demonstrate] that they must also disagree [in the definition of kares and ariri]. For according to the Babylonian Talmud, as stated in Yevamos 55a, the reason for the Torah to state [in Lev. 20:20, concerning the forbidden relationship with one’s aunt], “they shall die childless,” and the necessity for the verse [in Lev. 20:21, regarding the relationship of his brother’s wife], “shall be childless,” teaches us the extent to which the punishment of kares is meted out by God; [not only the children born from the time of the transgression and onward will die, but those born before the transgression will also die]. For according to the Babylonian Talmud, whatever punishment is written regarding one ervah must be applied to any other ervah; the reason for stating “childless” is only in order to define kares.21According to the Babylonian Talmud, various types of ervah can be derived from one another, so why is there a need to state the punishment of kares in the verses describing the forbidden relationships with one’s aunt and brother’s wife, since it is derivable without these verses? The Talmud therefore concludes that it is defining how kares is carried out by God. Thus, Tosafos’s question has now been well answered, for according to our Mishnah, the wife of one’s maternal half-brother has not been excluded [from kares], whereas according to the Toras Kohanim, this woman is not included at all within the fifteen types, [and is thus exempt from the punishment of kares].22Tosafos’s difficulty is based on his understanding that the Babylonian Talmud agrees that the Toras Kohanim exempts the wife of the maternal half-brother from yibbum and halitzah.