Commento su Levitico 20:17

חסד הוא IT IS A WICKED THING — It is an Aramaic expression, the Hebrew חרפה (disgrace) being in that language חסודא (cf. Onkelos on Genesis 34:14). A Midrashic explanation of it (of חסד הוא) is; If you should say, "But Cain married his sister!" then I reply, Cain's case was an exceptional one; an act of kindness (חסד) was done by the Omnipresent in order that His world might be built up through him (i. e. He made the propagation of the human race possible through this union), as it is said (Psalms 89:3) "The world was built up through חסד, loving-kindness" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 11 11; Sanhedrin 58b).

AND IF A MAN ‘YIKACH’ (SHALL TAKE) HIS SISTER. Scripture mentions the term kichah [“taking,” which generally denotes the taking of a woman as a wife] in the case of a sister, although betrothal to her is not valid, because a brother and sister sleep together in one house, and when his desire overpowers him, he takes her and draws her to himself, and he does not have to come to her as one does to a woman who is a harlot. Similarly it is the way of Scripture to use the term “taking” in the case of all those with whom one remains alone, for a wife and her mother,²⁴⁴Verse 14. [a wife] and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter,²⁴⁵Above, 18:17. a wife and her sister,²⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 18. and a brother’s wife²⁶⁰Further, Verse 21. are all [found] with him in one house [hence Scripture uses the term “taking” in each of these cases]. For a similar reason Scripture uses this expression in the following verse, A man shall not ‘take’ his father’s wife.²⁶¹Deuteronomy 23:1. The expression and he see her nakedness is an euphemism, since Scripture modifies its expression in speaking of forbidden relationships. Sometimes it calls sexual intercourse “uncovering of nakedness,” as it says in the case of most of the forbidden women, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness, for it is the way of those who commit fornication to uncover her skirts, similar to that which is said, and I will uncover thy skirts upon thy face;²⁶²Nahum 3:5. and at times it calls it “entering,” thus: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her;²⁶³Deuteronomy 22:13. to come in unto us;²⁶⁴Genesis 19:31. and he came in unto her, and she conceived by him.²⁶⁵Ibid., 38:18. Many times Scripture calls it “lying,” and here it refers to it as “seeing,” since brother and sister lodge together and there is no need for uncovering of skirts. Similarly Scripture uses the euphemism “knowing,” as in the following expressions: And the man knew Eve his wife;²⁶⁶Ibid., 4:1. and he knew her again no more;²⁶⁷Ibid., 38:26. a virgin, neither had any man known her.²⁶⁸Ibid., 24:16. And Scripture states [here in the verse before us] and she see his nakedness, meaning to say that she too desired his nakedness in her heart and consented thereto. Now it mentions these expressions only in the case of a sister, because in all forbidden relations when a man approaches a woman for the purpose of uncovering her nakedness, it is generally with her consent, and otherwise she can remove herself from him and cry for help, but in the case of a brother [and sister] who lodge together, it may be that it was done without her knowledge, and therefore Scripture mentioned that she too “saw his nakedness.”

חסד הוא, the word חסד here is to be understood in the same sense as the same word in Proverbs 25,10 פן יחסדך שומע, “lest the one who hears it puts you to shame.” We also find the word having such a meaning in Proverbs 14,34 וחסד לאומים חטאת, “even the kindness of nations is a form of sin.” This is also the way Rav Yoseph translates this word in his commentary on Proverbs.

ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, “and a man who takes his sister as a wife.” Nachmanides already comments on why the Torah here uses an expression for a sexual union which elsewhere always means a legal union, i.e. marriage. This seems especially inappropriate, as, according to halachah, any such “marriage” ceremony between brother and sister is null and void. Nachmanides therefore does not understand the word יקח here in the legal sense of the word, but as a graphic description of how brother and sister who both live under the same roof are liable to slide into an intimate relationship precisely because they are so familiar with one another and the frequency of the opportunity makes it hard to resist. Whereas the normal expression in halachah describing sexual intercourse between two people is ביאה, i.e. one party has to “come” to the other, here, due to both parties already being in the same location, that word would lose its normal connotation. All the brother has to do is יקח, take the sister, just as he takes a glass of water. You will find that the Torah has adopted this phraseology of יקח whenever the union of heterosexual relatives who are likely to live in the same house is described.

And its midrashic interpretation: And if you argue that Cain, etc. (Nachalas Yaakov) Explanation. Even though Adam could have married his daughter since a non-Jew is permitted to have relations with his daughter, and the resultant daughter would have been a niece to Kayin. This [union] is permitted even for a Jew. Although she would have been his paternal sister, a non-Jew is not regarded as related to his father. Nevertheless, the Holy One did an act of kindness with His world and forbade them to Adam and permitted them to Kayin so that the world would be built speedily. Re’m raises a difficulty, “You might ask that this implies that if not because of “the world is built [in] kindness,” he would have been forbidden to his sister. But if so, how did the tribes marry their sisters according to R. Yehudah who says that twin sisters were born with each and every tribe and they married them? The answer is that only one’s maternal sister is forbidden [to a non-Jew], whereas a paternal [sister] is permitted. Therefore the tribes married the twin sisters of the other tribes.

ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, when the Torah uses the expression קיחה in connection with someone’s attempt to marry his sister, something outlawed and therefore illegal, legally irrelevant, the word implies that the person to be married is legally free to marry the member of the opposite sex in question. This automatically excludes, gentiles, or the child of a Canaanite slave woman. [perhaps the author felt that the Torah had to repeat the point as, through conversion, such family bonds as had existed had been halachically severed. Ed.]

ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, “and if a man takes his sister as a wife, etc;” from verse 18,9, the sages derived what kind of sister and from what kind of mother is prohibited on pains of what penalty. The subject is dealt with in detail in the Talmud Yevamot folios 22 and 23.

IT IS ‘CHESED.’ In the opinion of the commentators²⁶⁹Rashi and R’dak (in Sefer Hashorashim, root chesed). chesed here means “shame,” because all people will naturally be ashamed of this ugly sin, this being used here as in the Aramaic language, for Onkelos translated, for that were ‘a disgrace’ unto us,²⁷⁰Genesis 34:14. “for that were chisudo unto us.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated and I will lay it for ‘a reproach,’²⁷¹I Samuel 11:2. “[and I will lay it for] chisudo.” And in the language of the Sages [we find]:²⁷²Ruth Rabbah 7:11. “Because shechasdo (he shamed him) in public.” Similarly, lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’²⁷³Proverbs 25:10. means “lest he cause you shame upon your revealing the secret of another.”
And they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. The intention thereof is as follows: “You have done this secretly, but G-d will reveal your sin by bringing upon you a punishment before all the children of your people.” He mentioned this with reference to a sin which is done in utmost secrecy, but it applies as well to all [sins punishable by] excision, as I have mentioned. He hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. This means that if he had uncovered his sister’s nakedness against her will, he alone shall bear his iniquity, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented. But in my opinion the expression he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity means that each one of those mentioned [will bear the iniquity], just like the expression for he hath made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.²⁷⁴Verse 19.
The correct interpretation of the word chesed [it is ‘chesed’] appears to me to be according to its plain sense [“goodness,” “kindness”]. So also is the opinion of our Rabbis.²⁷⁵Torath Kohanim, Kedoshim 11:9. “It is ‘chesed.’ And if you should say: ‘But Cain did marry his sister!’ It is for this reason that Scripture states, it is ‘chesed’ [an act of kindness — done by the Creator in order that the world be built up], for the world from its very start was created only by kindness, as it is said, The world was built up through kindness” (Psalms 89:3). The verse is thus stating that the brother’s kinship is kindness,²⁷⁶I.e., a brother’s kinship to his sister should express itself in kindness, as that is the essence of kinship, whereas he has acted to the contrary. and it is not proper for the uncovering of nakedness. Thus in the case of other relations Scripture mentions that the reason [for the prohibition of sexual intercourse] is because they are next of kin, but in the case of a brother [and sister] it mentions as the reason the kindness which should be among them. The word ish [and if ‘a man’ shall take his sister] thus draws along with it a similar word [so that the expression it is ‘chesed’ becomes “it is ish chesed,” meaning: “it is a man who should have acted kindly to her, but he did the contrary, and hence his punishment is severe”]. Or it may be that [the expression it is ‘chesed’] is like: and I am prayer²⁷⁷Psalms 109:4. [which means: “and I am ‘a man of’ prayer”; for thou art precious things²⁷⁸Daniel 9:23. [which means: “for thou art ‘a man of’ precious things”]; Behold, I am against thee, O arrogance²⁷⁹Jeremiah 50:31. [which means: “‘man of’ arrogance”], in all of which cases the word ish (man) is missing [and here too that word is omitted, as if it were to say: “it is ish chesed,” as explained above]. Or it may be that Scripture in these cases refers to these men by their qualities [as if to say, “kindness personifies the brother,” “I am all prayer,” “he is all preciousness,” or “arrogance personified”. Thus Scripture is stating, And if a man shall take his sister … and see her nakedness … he is [to have been] the man of kindness, and they shall be cut off, for he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. Thus He mentioned that the brother should have been the merciful man who doeth good to his own soul, but he was cruel and troubled his own flesh.²⁸⁰Proverbs 11:17. For he should have done the kindness to her that brothers do, to give her in marriage to a husband, but he blemished and troubled her. Scripture ascribes the fault in such cases to the male, just as it is said, he hath uncovered his brother’s [wife’s] nakedness; they shall be childless²⁸¹Verse 21. [and likewise here too it states, ‘he’ hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness]. Similarly it is my opinion that the expression, lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’²⁷³Proverbs 25:10. means “lest he that hears it will remove from you all kindness, because you have not shown kindness to your friend who entrusted you with his secret.” [The word y’chasedcha here meaning “remove kindness”] is like: l’dashno²⁸²Exodus 27:3. [the root of which deshen in its primary sense means “to cover with ashes,” but also has the opposite meaning of “removing the ashes”]; and all mine increase ‘t’shareish’²⁸³Job 31:12. [which, in its ordinary form, would mean “to take root,” but also has the opposite meaning of “rooting out”], and similar cases. [Likewise, y’chasedcha which is of the root chesed, kindness, means in the verse quoted “remove kindness,” and does not mean “shame.”] For it appears to me unlikely that the word chesed in the Sacred Language should bear such opposite meanings [as “kindness” and “shame”], when Scriptural texts abound in the praise of chesed and use it in prayers. The term chisudo, however, in Aramaic is another matter. Even that language differentiates between the two usages; “kindness” is translated chisdo,²⁸⁴Genesis 39:21: and He showed him ‘chased’ Onkelos translates: “and He showed him [Joseph] chisdo” (mercy, kindness). and “shame” is translated chisudo.²⁸⁵As Onkelos translated in Genesis 34:14 [mentioned above]. Now Rabbeinu Chananel²⁸⁶See Exodus, Vol. II, p. 106, Note 45, on Rabbeinu Chananel. It is of interest here to add that in view of the fact that Ramban quotes an interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel on a verse in the Book of Proverbs, it would seem to indicate that Rabbeinu Chananel’s exegetic activity extended also to the Scriptural books in the division of the Writings, in addition to those on the Pentateuch and the Prophets. See my introduction to “Peirushei Rabbeinu Chananel al Ha’torah,” Mosad Harav Kook, 1972. wrote that ‘chesed’ to any people is sin²⁸⁷Proverbs 14:34. means “reproach” [i.e., that sin is “a reproach” to any people]. But in my opinion this too is an expression of contrast [as will be explained]. For “righteousness” and chesed are mentioned in that verse [thus: Righteousness exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ to any people is sin], these being twin terms mentioned in all places, as for example: he that followeth after righteousness and ‘chesed;’²⁸⁸Ibid., 21:21. that I am the Eternal who exercises ‘chesed,’ justice, and righteousness in the earth.²⁸⁹Jeremiah 9:23. Rather, the meaning of the verse in my opinion is as follows: “Righteousness if practiced exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ (mercy, kindness) is a reproach to any people if it fails to practice it.” Thus the verse is stating that upon righteousness and mercy depends the elevation or the decline of any people. Or it may be [that the verse is] stating: “Righteousness exalts any individual nation that practices it, while many nations sin by their failure to do mercy.” A similar example of such a verse is the one immediately preceding it: In the heart of him that hath discernment, wisdom resteth; but in the inward part of fools it maketh itself known,²⁹⁰Proverbs 14:33. the meaning of which is that “it makes itself known that [wisdom] is not there,” for all who see them recognize by their deeds that they are fools and there is no understanding in them.²⁹¹Deuteronomy 32:28. These two verses [thus express their thoughts in their second half] in a negative manner.²⁹²Thus: Mercy is a reproach to any people if it does not practice it. In the inward part of fools it makes itself known that wisdom does not rest therein.
Emor

וראה את ערותה, “and he sees her nakedness;” Nachmanides writes that it is the style of the Torah to teach morality by varying the expressions used for the same phenomenon. Sometimes sexual intercourse by people whose sexual union is forbidden is described as “revealing nakedness,” other times it is described as “seeing nakedness,” as here. Other times the same act is simply described as “sleeping or lying together.” The reason why the Torah may have chosen to describe brother/sister sexual relations as “seeing nakedness,” may be because being in the same house together all the time” may not have left much to reveal that either one of them had not seen before without their being intimate with one another. By repeating that the sister also saw her brother naked, the Torah may indicate that the attraction and desire was completely mutual and that neither force nor enticement was needed. When a female is seduced unwillingly, she would protest in the loudest possible terms. What is described here therefore occurred by mutual consent, so that no investigation was needed to determine that both were equally guilty. [Compare Deut. Chapter 22 where seduction or rape between two people not related to one another genetically are discussed. Ed.] Seeing that when brother and sister are in the habit of sleeping in the same bed, the brother might have perpetrated his act without the prior consent of his sister, or even without her knowledge, the Torah reports her consent in order to justify the penalty she will have to suffer.

והיא תראה את ערותו, “and she sees his nakedness;” the word והיא is written with the letter י to make certain that there can be no misunderstanding as to who is meant.

חסד הוא, “it is a shameful disgraceful act.” People, by nature, possess a sense of shame that often deters them from committing sins, acts that are despicable. We find the word חסד in that context in Proverbs 25,10 פן יחסדך שומע, “lest he who will hear it puts you to shame.” (By revealing something you would have preferred to keep secret.) Nachmanides writes that he feels that the word חסד in our verse is used in the way it is used in nearly all other instances in the Bible, namely referring to an act of kindness. How then does this fit our situation? Precisely because brother and sister are closely related it was the duty of the brother to see to it that his sister find a suitable husband, something he has now made difficult if not impossible because he indulged his lust. The Torah repeatedly stated that the prohibition to reveal the other party’s nakedness was because of the close relationship that exists between such parties, so that it is taking unfair advantage of that relationship. It is as if the Torah asks the rhetorical question: “is this the way you show your sister true kindness?” The Torah speaks of חסד in the masculine mode, i.e. הוא to show that it always considers the male to have been the one initiating the intimacy between the two. This approach can also be applied to the verse from Proverbs we quoted earlier, namely: “the one who revealed your innermost secret has deprived you of all the kindness he should have shown you.”

תראה את ערותו, “the relationship is consensual.”

ונכרתו לעיני עם, “they shall be cut off in the sight of their whole nation.” The message of this verse is that when you commit a sin in secret, I, G’d, will see to it that it becomes public by means of the penalty I will exact from you in plain view of all. The Torah chose to tell us this in connection with sins usually committed in the privacy of one’s home. What applies here also applies to all the sins that are punishable by the karet penalty.

חסד הוא, “it is a shameful thing;” The word הוא, is spelled with the vowel shuruk; this vowel reveals that it is the male in that relationship who is guilty. The first section of the verse speaks of consensual perverse relationship between brother and sister, a relationship both try to keep concealed; hence the Torah adds that their punishment will be very public, an example of how the punishment fits the crime. The second part of the verse assumes that the brother had raped his sister, hence the punishment is confined to the brother,

ערות אחותו גלה, עונו ישא, “he will have to bear the burden of his sin for having revealed the nakedness of his sister.” Ibn Ezra adds that if her brother had raped his sister so that only he alone had revealed the nakedness of his sister, of course, only the brother will be subject to the penalty described here. Nachmanides writes that the reason that the word עונו, “his guilt,” is written in the singular mode is that each of the two parties will have to bear the burden of their joint sin individually. It is similar to the situation in verse 19 where the Torah uses the word עוונם, “their collective guilt” in the plural mode. Ibn Ezra mentions that the reason why the Torah did not spell out the penalty for sleeping with the grandson or granddaughter may be that the senior partner in that relationship, due to old age, may not get much carnal pleasure out of gratifying his desire.

עונו ישא, “he will have to carry the burden of his guilt.