Commento su Levitico 20:14

ישרפו אתו ואתהן [AND IF A MAN TAKE A WIFE AND HER MOTHER, IT IS WICKEDNESS] THEY SHALL BE BURNT [WITH FIRE] BOTH HE AND THEY — You cannot say that this means that they shall burn also his first wife (i. e. her whom he married first), because you must admit that he married her legally for she was not forbidden to him as a wife. But the fact is that the case of “a woman and her mother": mentioned here must be a case where both of them are forbidden to him on account of a previous relationship to him, — that, for instance, after having married a woman, he marries also his mother-in-law and her mother. It is these two that have to be burnt. There are, however, some of our Rabbis who say we have here a case of where, in addition to having married a woman, he marries only his mother-in-law (but not also the latter's mother). But what then could be the meaning of אתהן? It means one of them (“את "הן) and this is a Greek word, הן (ξυ) meaning “one" (Sanhedrin 76b; Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 10 12).

One of them. (Gur Aryeh) Why does it not write “he and her”? The answer is that if Scripture had written this I would think [the prohibition applies only] if one married the daughter legally and the mother illegally as the verse implies “Who marries a woman and her mother.” I would then say [the prohibition applies] only if the daughter was first and the mother afterwards, and that “her” referred to “her mother.” But now that it is written אתהן [which means] “one of them,” [this indicates that the prohibition applies] whether he married the mother first and the daughter illegally [and] the daughter is liable, or married the daughter first and the mother afterwards [and] the mother is liable.

ואיש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה, זמה היא, באש ישררפו .“if a man takes his mother in law as a sexual partner in addition to his wife, this is a perversion; they shall be executed by “burning;” (having molten lead poured into their throats.) How do we know from the wording of this verse that the same penalty applies to someone who engages in sexual relations with both his daughter and his granddaughter (by this daughter)? The sages use the principle known as g’zeyrah shavah, one of the 13 principles of valid interpretation expounded by Rabbi Yishmael in Torat Kohanim, [and recited in our daily morning prayers. Ed.] that when (for no otherwise compelling reason) the Torah used the same wording in discussing different subjects, it was in order to teach us that the details of these subjects have something in common halachically. In this case, it is the word: זמה, used for perversion here, and the same word used in chapter 18,17, where the subject was “mother, daughter, and granddaughter,” (including her son’s daughter) becoming the sexual partners of the same male. In other words, violating the laws expounded in either verse are punishable by the same type of death penalty, burning. How do I know that it does not matter in this respect if the biological relationships discussed here are based on the male or the female respectively? We find the expressions הנה, “they are,” and the expressions זמה, “perversion” both in18,17, where it describes the biological relationships of the parties involved by the word שאר, which loosely translated means “family relation.” The subject is elaborated on in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 76, where different methods of legal executions are discussed, with emphasis on the penalty of “burning.” (B’chor shor, also)., “perversion

ואיש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה, זמה היא, באש ישררפו “if a man takes his motherinlaw as a sexual partner in addition to his wife, this is a perversion; they shall be executed by “burning;” (having molten lead poured into their throats.) How do we know from the wording of this verse that the same penalty applies to someone who engages in sexual relations with both his daughter and his granddaughter (by this daughter)? The sages use the principle known as g’zeyrah shavah, one of the 13 principles of valid interpretation expounded by Rabbi Yishmael in Torat Kohanim, [and recited in our daily morning prayers. Ed.] that when (for no otherwise compelling reason) the Torah used the same wording in discussing different subjects, it was in order to teach us that the details of these subjects have something in common halachically. In this case, it is the word: זמה, used for perversion here, and the same word used in chapter 18,17, where the subject was “mother, daughter, and granddaughter,” (including her son’s daughter) becoming the sexual partners of the same male. In other words, violating the laws expounded in either verse are punishable by the same type of death penalty, burning. How do I know that it does not matter in this respect if the biological relationships discussed here are based on the male or the female respectively? We find the expressions הנה, “they are,” and the expressions זמה, “perversion” both in18,17, where it describes the biological relationships of the parties involved by the word שאר, which loosely translated means “family relation.” The subject is elaborated on in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 76, where different methods of legal executions are discussed, with emphasis on the penalty of “burning.” (B’chor shor, also)., “perversion

That is that He commanded to offer the grain offering of the omer. And that is the grain offering of barley on the sixteenth day of Nissan. And with it, we offer an unblemished year-old lamb. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "you shall bring the omer, etc." (Leviticus 23:10). This grain offering is what is called, "first fruits." And He hinted to it in His, may His name be blessed, saying, "And if you offer an offering of first fruits" (Leviticus 2:14). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:22:1) is, "Every, if, in the Torah connotes optionality, except for three which are obligatory. One is, 'And if you offer an offering of first fruits.' You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional. [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall offer the offering of your first fruits.' It is obligatory, not optional." And the regulations of this commandment have already all been completely explained in the tenth chapter of Menachot. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 17.)