Commento su Deuteronomio 27:20

BECAUSE HE HATH UNCOVERED HIS FATHER’S SKIRT. This is a respectful euphemism for the father, for in the Torah He mentioned, he hath uncovered his father’s nakedness.⁶⁶Leviticus 20:11. So also He mentioned the term “their nakedness” in the cases of his brother’s wife⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 21. and his uncle’s wife⁶⁸Ibid., Verse 20. for there the transgressors are liable to severe punishment, death [by the court, if there were witnesses] or extinction [if there were no witnesses] and Scripture thus needed to condemn the evil they had done; therefore it mentioned “nakedness” concerning them. But here the transgressor being “cursed,” it was sufficient to mention because he hath uncovered his father’s skirt, for he is deserving of an imprecation merely for uncovering his father’s skirt, for it disgraces his honor, and anyone who dishonors his father, is cursed.⁶⁹Verse 16. Similarly, A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt⁷⁰Above, 23:1. is a respectful euphemism meaning that he should not approach her, for it is not proper to uncover the skirt which he spread over a wife by means of a canopy, similar to what is stated, spread therefore thy skirt over thy handmaid.⁷¹Ruth 3:9. This excludes the interpretation of him who says⁷²The reference is to Ibn Ezra who interpreted the verse [A man shall not take his father’s wife — above 23:1] as referring to a woman violated by his father. To this Ramban objects, for this opinion coincides with that of Rabbi Akiba, while the majority of the Sages hold that a man may marry such a woman (Yebamoth 49a). that this verse [A man shall not take his father’s wife] includes a woman that was violated by him.

כי גלה כנף אביו, “for he has uncovered the robe of his father.” Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah did not write ערות אביו (as it usually does) in such verses is out of respect for the father’s dignity. Earlier (Leviticus 20,12) when the Torah wrote ערות אביו the sin committed carried a heavy penalty, administered in many instances by a human court of law. The wording therefore had to reflect the severity of the sin in order to serve as a deterrent. The offending party in our verse is guilty of a lesser sin. Similar considerations prompted the Torah to use the term גלה כנף in 23,1 where the prohibition to marry a woman who had been raped by one’s father, or is one’s stepmother is revealed, the sin is of a lower order than sleeping with one’s mother, who is also the wife of one’s father. Nachmanides writes that the reason why Moses selected the people guilty of the above mentioned eleven sins as deserving public censure, i.e. the people mouthing a curse on anyone guilty of them, is that it is the norm for those sins to be committed in the privacy of one’s home, when there are no witnesses to the deed. The guilty party therefore cannot be convicted of his sin, as there had not been any witnesses. The curse pronounced here is to act as a deterrent not commit crimes when only G’d is the witness. The Torah begins the list with a sin committed vis a vis the Creator, i.e. idolatry, and switches to a sin committed vis a vis one’s parents, i.e. degrading them. Parents represent G’d the Creator, as He had a share in the child’s coming into this world. Bestiality is mentioned in the list, as opposed to rape performed on humans, the animals cannot protest what is being done to them, giving the sinner a distinct advantage. Similar considerations apply to proselytes, orphans, and widows, none of whom have easy access to someone who would defend them if they have been wronged.